- (1.) Admittedly the appellant worked as a salesman at the Lindsay outlet of Bata India Limited with effect from 24th January, 1997 on a daily wages of Rs. 58.85 paise. His service was terminated on 22nd February, 1998 without any notice. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held in favour of the appellant and directed the employer-company to reinstate him as also to pay full back wages and other consequential benefits. Challenging the aforesaid award, the employer invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition was disposed of by brother J.K. Biswas, J., by a judgment and order dated 18th June, 2010 by which the writ petitioner was directed to pay to the workman a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation in lieu of the award for reinstatement and back wages. Challenging the aforesaid order, the workman has come up in appeal.
(2.) Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the mandate of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is reinstatement in case the retrenchment is found to have been made in violation of the mandatory requirements laid down therein. The second submission was that Court may have some discretion in the matter of awarding the back wages either in full or in part. In support of his submission he relied on the judgment in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, 2005 106 FLR 607. He, however, submitted that as regards the relief of reinstatement there is no discretion.
(3.) The submission of Mr. Sanyal that Court may have some discretion in the matter of awarding back wages either in full or in part but has no discretion in the matter of reinstatement, is not inconformity with the views expressed by the Supreme Court in a series of matters. These were taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court and we need not reiterate that. In the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, 2009 122 FLR 665. Their Lordships expressed the following opinion: 15. It would be, thus, seen that by 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. Therefore, the view of the High Court that the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement and back wages in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. However, in our view, the High Court erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages. As a matter of fact, in all the judgments of this Court referred to and relied upon by the High Court while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages, this Court has awarded compensation. The submission of Mr. Sanyal is, therefore, without any merit.;