G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the award dated 15.4.2009 (Annexure P/7) whereby a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - was ordered to pay to the workwoman as compensation instead of reinstatement.
(2.) A perusal of the paper -book would go on to show that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on 15.9.1997 on temporary basis for 89 days. Her services were dispensed with on 8.7.2001 and demand notice under Section 2 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued on 3.7.2002. In reply to the demand notice, the State defended retrenchment on account of orders passed by this Court as per instructions issued by the Personnel Department vide letter dated 12.8.1996. The matter was referred to the Labour Court which found that the workman had completed 240 days and had been initially engaged for 89 days and her services was extended from time to time with notional breaks. There were violation of provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act. However, it was found that she was not a regular employee and proper procedure was not followed while dispensing with her services and, therefore, compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - was ordered. While issuing notice of motion, this Court has taken into consideration the submission made by the counsel that atleast the compensation deserves to be suitably enhanced.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner -workwoman has worked for almost four years from 15.9.1997 to 7.7.2001. It is a matter of fact that appointment was not on regular basis, however, while terminating the service proper procedure under Section 25 -F of the Act was not followed. The termination took place way back on 8.7.2001, accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that compensation is liable to be enhanced and reinstatement would not be viable at this point of time. In such circumstances keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & another Vs. Gitam Singh : 2013(5) SCC 136, reinstatement would not be justified since the mode, manner and nature of appointment, the length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute are necessary aspects, which are to be considered by the Court. The principles laid down read as under: 29. In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute.;