- (1.) Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. There was inordinate delay in raising the dispute by the respondent. Hence, the appellant was liable to be paid only compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra L. Jain and Others Vs. Indore Development Authority and Others (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 639, decided on November 22, 2004, wherein, it has been held as under:- "This case involves 31 employees. A distinction is sought to be made by Dr. Dhawan that out of them 27 had been appointed to a project and not in a project. The distinction although appears to be attractive at the first blush but does not stand a moment's scrutiny. As noticed hereinbefore, the High Court's observation remained unchallenged, that the project was to be financed by ODA. The project was indisputably to be executed by the Indore Development Authority; and for the implementation thereof, the appointments had to be made by it. If the Appellants were appointed for the purpose of the project, they would be deemed to have been appointed therefor and only because such appointments had been made by the Respondent would by itself not entitle them to claim permanency. The life of the project came to an end on 30.6.1997. The maintenance job upon completion thereof had been taken over by Indore Municipal Corporation. The Appellants were aware of the said fact and, thus, raised an alternative plea in their statements of claims. The Labour Court could not have granted any relief to them as prayed for, as Indore Municipal Corporation is a separate juristic person having been created under a statute. Such a relief would have been beyond the scope and purport of the reference made to the Labour Court by the State Government. Furthermore, the Indore Municipal Corporation was not a party and, thus, no employee could be thrust upon it without its consent."
(3.) Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur Vs. Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 294, decided on April 3, 2017, wherein, it has been held as under:- "The respondent workman had worked under the Appellant for a period of two years and three months whereafter he was terminated on 1-6-1994. Judicial opinion has been consistent that if the termination is found to be contrary to Sections 25-F and 25- G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstatement in service is not the rule but an exception and ordinarily grant of compensation would meet the ends of justice. The respondent workman in the present case had worked for a period of two years and three months and that apart he had approached the Labour Court after 13 years. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the order of the Labour Court and the High Court ought to be modified by granting compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement without back wages as ordered. It is ordered accordingly. The aforesaid amount of compensation will be paid within a period of six weeks from today.";