Rajinder Singh vs D.F.O., Haryana Forest Development Corporationand Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Petitioner-workman has filed the instant writ petition impugning the award dated 15.1.2013, Annexure P1, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court whereby even though a finding has been recorded as regards non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ''the Act''), he has been denied the relief of reinstatement and has been awarded compensation of Rs. 80,000/- in lieu thereof. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-workman would contend that the workman had rendered service as a Chowkidar from June 1987 to 15.7.2008 whereupon his services had been terminated without being paid wages in lieu of notice period nor was any retrenchment compensation paid and as such, a finding having been recorded as regards non-compliance of Section 25 of the Act, the relief of reinstatement must follow. In the alternative, a submission has been made that even the compensation awarded is on the lower side against the backdrop of eight years of service having been rendered.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the engagement of the workman was dehors the Rules and no selection process in the nature of advertisement, calling of applications from other eligible candidates etc. had been followed and under such circumstances, even if there be a transgression of Section 25-F of the Act, a daily wager would not be entitled to reinstatement.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

Perusal of the award would reveal that upon due appreciation of evidence, a finding has been recorded that the petitioner-workman had been engaged as casual labour on 17.1.1998 on payment of wages fixed by the Deputy Commissioner from time to time and he worked as such upto 30.6.2008 with breaks in service. Thereafter, for the period January 2006 to June 2008, he had served continuously and, in any case, he had completed more than 240 days in the last 12 preceding months taken from the date of termination i.e. 30.6.2008. Since the workman had not been given one month''s notice in writing indicating reasons for retrenchment and neither paid wages in lieu of such notice period and nor retrenchment compensation, a finding of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act has been returned. Labour Court has further held that violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act is not proved.

The employer-respondent has not assailed the award at Annexure P1. As such, this Court would proceed in the matter taking the finding as regards non-compliance of Section 25 of the Act to be well-founded.

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner having worked as a daily wager and his termination having been found to be in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act is entitled to reinstatement in service?

Precisely such question was considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, and it was held as under:

"From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of this Court that there could be circumstance (s) in a case which may make it in expedient to order reinstatement. Therefore, the normal rule that dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. Insofar as wrongful termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this Court has laid down that consequential relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Where the length of engagement as daily wager has not been long, award of reinstatement should not follow and rather compensation should be directed to be paid. A distinction has been drawn between a daily wager and an employee holding the regular post for the purposes of consequential relief."

Such view has thereafter been re-iterated by the Apex Court in B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal, .

Following the dictum laid down in Gitam Singh''s case and Bhurumal''s case (supra), this Court does not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Labour Court as regards denying to the petitioner-workman the relief of reinstatement.

However, the compensation of Rs. 80,000/- awarded in the impugned award is on the lower side. As per evidence adduced on record, the petitioner-workman as a daily wage laborer has rendered three years continuous service and five years service with breaks. In Bhurumal''s case (supra), a daily wager lineman who had claimed to work for 15 years was directed to be paid a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs instead of reinstatement on account of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act.

This Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the compensation awarded to the petitioner-workman is enhanced from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 2 lacs. Ordered accordingly.

Such payment be made to the petitioner-workman within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 8% per annum. But for such modification in the impugned award dated 15.1.2013 at Annexure P1, whereby compensation has been enhanced from Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 2 lacs, the award is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed.