Dausa. vs Shri Gopal S/o Shri Gona Koli, Village Post Jastana Tehsil Boili

: Mr. Gopal Krishan Sharma, Addl. GC For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gouttam JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/02/2025

1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur in LCR Case No.69/2000 by which the statement of claim submitted by the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as “workman”) has been allowed and his termination order dated 12.04.1982 has been quashed and set- aside and a direction has been issued to the petitioner to reinstate him back in service with continuity.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the workman was engaged as Daily Wager/Beldar in the month of June, 1979 and, thereafter, his services were terminated on

12.04.1982. Learned counsel submits that the workman has not completed 240 days in a calendar year and he has raised an industrial dispute after a delay of 16 years but overlooking these (2 of 6) [CW-3368/2017] material aspects of the matter, the award impugned has been passed, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. In alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the nature of employment of the workman i.e. temporary basis and looking to the length of service i.e. more than three years and also looking to the fact that dispute was raised after a delay of 16 years, the Labour Court could have granted lump-sum amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, hence under these circumstances, appropriate orders be passed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner- department and submitted that workman has worked with the petitioner-department for more than three years and his services were terminated without issuing any notice and without giving any compensation in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’) and this fact was established on record that he worked with the petitioners-department for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

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

6. This fact is not in dispute that the nature of engagement of the workman with the petitioner-Department was Daily Wager. This fact is also not in dispute that he was engaged in the month of June, 1979 and his services were terminated on 12.04.1982 (3 of 6) [CW-3368/2017] and this fact is also not in dispute that the industrial dispute was raised by the workman after a delay of 16 years. The Tribunal while deciding the claim petition of the workman has recorded a finding of fact that the workman has worked with the petitioner for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year. These findings of fact cannot be interfered by this Court as no contrary evidence has been produced on the record.

7. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is as to whether looking to the nature of employment and looking to the total length of service of the workman, he is entitled to get reinstated or a lump-sum amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

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. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh reported in (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 Act of 1947, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right.

10. In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked (4 of 6) [CW-3368/2017] 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.

11. 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 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 (5 of 6) [CW-3368/2017] 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.”

12. The 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 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 (6 of 6) [CW-3368/2017] amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.”

13. 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 finding of facts recorded by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court.

14. Looking to the fact that the workman has rendered his services with the employer for a period of more than three years, the workman is entitled to get compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

15. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the workman as compensation in lieu of reinstatement as observed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the amount is not paid to the workman within the stipulated time i.e. three months, then the workman would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment.

16. The award of the Labour Court dated 05.10.2016 stands modified in the above terms.

17. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

18. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Karan/39 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J