- (1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is where the workman had worked for only eight months as daily wager and his termination has been held to be in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'ID Act'), whether the direction to the employer for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages is legally sustainable.
(2.) We were not disposed to undertake the detailed exercise but the same has become necessary in view of very vehement contention of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent (workman), that reinstatement must follow where termination of a workman has been found to be in breach of Section 25-F of ID Act. He heavily relied upon three decisions of this Court in L. Robert D Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Another, 1982 1 SCC 645, Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 3 SCC 192 and Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, 2011 6 SCC 584.
(3.) On behalf of the appellant, Ms. Shobha, learned counsel, challenged the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days continuously in the year preceding the date of termination. Alternatively, she submitted that the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages in the facts of the case was unjustified as the respondent was only a daily wager; he worked for a very short period from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991 and for last more than 20 years he is not in the service due to interim orders. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni, 2006 9 SCC 434, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and Another, 2008 1 SCC 575, Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, 2009 15 SCC 327, Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others, 2010 6 SCC 773 and In-charge Officer and Another v. Shankar Shetty, 2010 9 SCC 126, she submitted that respondent was at best entitled to some compensation for unlawful termination.;