Gram and Post Gadarwada, Gujran, Tehsil Baswa, District Alwar v. Chairman Institute of Engineering and Technology, M.I.A., Alwar

: Mr. Pradeep Singh Mr. Jitesh Kumawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/03/2025

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in LCR No. 246/2006, by which the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner-workman against his termination order dated 01.04.2000 has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee on regular basis with the respondent on 27.07.1998 and his services were terminated on

01.04.2000 without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation and the same was done in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits [2025:RJ-JP:10238] (2 of 7) [CW-7133/2015] that an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal by way of filing claim petition, however, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has resigned from service. Counsel submits that the Resignation Letter (Ex. M1) is written in English and the petitioner is not acquainted with the language written on the said resignation letter. Counsel submits that signatures of the petitioner were taken forcefully by the respondent to kick him out from service and this fact has not appreciated by the Tribunal and the claim submitted by the workman has been erroneously rejected. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the services of the petitioner were never terminated rather the petitioner himself has resigned from service. Counsel submits that after taking into count, the Resignation Letter (Ex. M1), the claim petition filed by the workman was rejected vide impugned award dated 19.02.2015 which warrants no interference of this Court and the instant petition is liable to the rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the sole reason for rejection of the claim petition of the petitioner is that he tendered Resignation (Ex.M-1) which bears his signature. Now the question remains for consideration of this Court is, whether the petitioner has tendered his resignation or not. [2025:RJ-JP:10238] (3 of 7) [CW-7133/2015]

6. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Class-IV employee on regular basis and not on casual, temporary or contract basis. Looking to the language used in the letter it appears that the same could not have been written by the petitioner and that his signatures were taken to kick him out from his services but these facts have been overlooked by the Tribunal while rejecting the claim petition of the workman. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned termination order of the petitioner is found to be invalid and the same is not sustainable in the light of the mandate contained under Section 25 F of the 1947 Act.

7. Now the next question which remains for consideration of this Court is that whether looking to the length of his service i.e one and half years with effect from 27.07.1998 till 31.03.2000, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated back in service or not.

8. It is the settled proposition of law, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court through catena of judgments that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, and if he proves it before the Court by leading evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

9. As per the recent trend of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held in number of cases that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lump-sum amount of [2025:RJ-JP:10238] (4 of 7) [CW-7133/2015] compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

10. In the case of BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right.

11. In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

12. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:- “33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet [2025:RJ-JP:10238] (5 of 7) [CW-7133/2015] the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. Disputes Act,

34. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.”

13. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para Nos.3 and 4 as under: “3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that [2025:RJ-JP:10238] (6 of 7) [CW-7133/2015] in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be `1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been `2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be `3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair. 4. Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of`2,50,000/- (approximately equivalent to two years back wages)based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.”

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra), this Court is of the view that the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court. However, considering that the reinstatement is not automatic, this Court deems it just and proper to enhance the award of compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement.

15. In the considered opinion of this Court and looking to the length of his service i.e. one and half years, the petitioner is entitled to get lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

16. In view of above, the instant petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of his reinstatement within a [2025:RJ-JP:10238] (7 of 7) [CW-7133/2015] period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

17. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. GARIMA /36 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J