Man Singh vs Judge, Labour Court

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.�Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner workman is challenging the validity of the award dated 20.1.2010 passed by Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur whereby it is held by the Tribunal that the termination of the petitioner workman with effect from 29.12.2004 is in violation of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but instead of granting relief of reinstatement, the Judge, Labour Court passed an award against the employer to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily rate basis in the Office of the respondents on 4.11.2003 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 29.12.2004 without compliance of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act, therefore, the Judge, Labour Court held in reference made by the appropriate government on 21.4.2005 that the termination of the petitioner''s services w.e.f. 30.12.2004 is bad in eye of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on one hand a clear cut finding is given by the Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur that the termination of the petitioner is bad in eye of law because before termination, no notice or compensation was given as per Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the I.D. Act but on the other hand, order has been passed for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- only in lieu of reinstatement, which is not justified in view of the fact that vacancy of driver is in existence on that post Narayan Lal - respondent No. 5 was re-employed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the post was in existence then there was no ground to terminate the services of the petitioner and engaging other person in his place, therefore, it is prayed that award impugned may be quashed to the extent of denial of reinstatement and the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as driver.

Learned counsel for the respondent Department submits that the aforesaid contention with regard to appointment of another person Narayan Lal after terminating his services is wrong because Judge, Labour Court observed in the order that Narayan Lal - respondent No. 5 was already in service on the day the services of the petitioner were discontinued, therefore, there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that after terminating his services, another person was employed. It is also argued that the claim of reinstatement is also not acceptable because the petitioner worked for only short period of 13 months commencing from 4.11.2003 to 29.12.2004 as daily employee, therefore, the order of compensation in lieu of reinstatement passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur is perfectly in consonance with law.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the finding given by the Judge, Labour Court, udaipur. In the finding, the Judge, Labour Court opined that the petitioner worked only for a period of 13 months and though his services were terminated without following the procedure laid down under the I.D. Act but he is not entitled for reinstatement in service because no person is employed after terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is proper relief which is to be granted to the workman.

Recently, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, held that if Labour Court came to the conclusion that retrenchment of daily rated employee is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act then reinstatement with full back wages is not proper and in those cases compensation should be awarded. Para 7 and 14 of the said judgment reads as under:--

"7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, thee has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee."

In the opinion of this Court when the petitioner worked only for 13 months then obviously, it cannot be presumed that any work was in existence with the respondents, therefore, while holding the termination of petitioner workman illegal, the Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur has rightly held that petitioner is entitled for compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

In view of above while following the aforesaid judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court, no interference is called for in the award impugned. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the compensation awarded to the petitioner workman is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- because the petitioner is litigating for his claim since 2005.