U.C.Srivastava, J. - (1.) The writ petition is directed against the award given by the Labour Court, Lucknow holding that the termination of service of the petitioner was illegal and void ab-initio but directing that the petitioner shall be given a compensation of Rs. 7,500 in lieu of reinstatement on the ground that he lacked qualification for the post and did not succeed in the qualifying examination.
(2.) The petitioner was engaged as daily wage workman at the Firozgandhi Uonchahar Thermal Power Project, Rae Bareli, on a daily wage at Rs. 17 with effect from 24th June 1982. In the year 1983 a written test for absorbing those persons in regular service was taken by the Board and the petitioner appeared in the same. Admittedly, the petitioner did not appear in the third paper which was also held on the same day. According to the petitioner, he was not allowed to appear in typing test and was told that there was no time and as such examination would be held subsequently. According to the opposite party, the petitioner was caught red-handed while using unfair means in the examination. His services were terminated orally. Ultimately he approached the State Government and moved an application under Section 2-A, Industrial Disputes Act and the matter was referred to the State Government which referred the matter to the Labour Court, Lucknow. The Labour Court did not record any finding on the point as to whether he was not allowed to appear in the examination as was pleaded by the petitioner or in feet he was caught red-handed in the examination while using unfair means. The Labour Court after taking into consideration the evidence on record held that verbal termination order was void ab initio as the same did not comply with the provisions of Section 6-N of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The employers have not challenged the award. It is only the petitioner who has challenged the award. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that once it is found that the termination of services of the petitioner was void ab initio, there was no option before the Labour Court but to direct reinstatement in service, more so when there was no averment that the employers have lost confidence in him. Even if it could be said that the petitioner failed in the written test and as such he could not have continued to work as daily wage worker if the practice of daily wage workers had come to an end. When the termination is void ab initio, the normal relief is that reinstatement should be given though in certain cases compensation could also be awarded. In Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala (1980-II-LLJ-72), it was held (at pp 75, 77): "The expression "termination of service for any reason whatsoever" in Section 2(00) covers every kind of termination of services except those not expressly included in Section 25-F or not expressly provided for by other provisions of the Act such as 25-FF and 25-FFP ....... Thus, the discharge of the workman on the ground she did not pass the test which would have enabled her to be confirmed was 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2(00) and, therefore, the requirements of Section 25-F had to be complied with." In U.P. Act the language is substantially the same. In the case of S.K. Verma v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi (1980-II-LLJ-72), it was held: "....... .there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-a-vis the employer and the workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the Court to make appropriate consequential orders." In the case of Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. (1981-II-LLJ-70) it was again held (p. 73): "Niceties and semantics apart, termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever would constitute retrenchment except in cases excepted in the section itself."
(3.) Section 2(00) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act which is analogous to Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act) define retrenchment: The excepted or excluded cases are where termination is by way of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between' the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf.;