- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) THE workman/appellant filed his statement of claim before Labour Court, Jaipur contending that his services were terminated in violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), therefore, the management be directed to reinstate him with continuity of service and back wages. The matter was contested by management. Labour Court vide its award dated 15th March, 1995 held that termination of workman is not valid and legal, therefore, he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Being aggrieved with the award, the management/respondent No.2 filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3769/1995. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 20th August, 2009 upheld the finding of the Labour Court that workman worked with his employer for more than 240 days and his services were terminated in violation of provisions of the Act. However, so far as relief part is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that since matter relates to the year 1980, the reference was made in 1986 and award was passed in the year 1995 and the workman has also attained the age of 58 years, it would be unjust to reinstate the workman. Learned Single Judge, in these circumstances, directed that in lieu of reinstatement with back wages, the workman be paid a lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/-. Being aggrieved with the order of learned Single Judge, the workman/appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant worked for more than 240 days with the respondent No.2, therefore, Labour Court was legally justified in passing award in his favour for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service and the same should not have been interferred with by the learned Single Judge. In alternative, counsel for the appellant argued that amount of compensation awarded by Single Bench is inadequate and the same be enhanced. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of reasons assigned by the Single Bench. We have also examined the award of the Labour Court as well as other material placed on record. So far as number of days of workman/appellant is concerned, the case of Management before Single Bench was that workman was appointed on 7th June, 1980 only for a period of 80 days. This fact was disputed by the workman. Learned Single Judge, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, did not interfere in the finding of fact in this regard recorded by the Labour Court and came to a conclusion that workman at least worked for 253 days.
(3.) SO far as award of lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back wages is concerned, we find that the matter relates to the year 1980. Reference was made in the year 1986. The award was passed in the year 1995. The appellant has also got the benefit under Section 17-B of the Act. Appellant has also attained the age of 58 years. Therefore, learned Single Judge was absolutely right in awarding an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back wages, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ramsahai and Another reported in (2006) 11 SCC 684 observed that even if it is assumed that there is violation of provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, but the same by itself would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an award of reinstatement with entire back wages. The Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order of reinstatement of workman in service and awarded Rs. 75,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement of workman with back wages. Para 28 of the Judgment reads as under: "We would, therefore, proceed on the basis that there had been a violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act, but, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an award of reinstatement with entire back wages. This Court time and again had held that the jurisdiction under Section 11-A must be exercised judiciously. The workman must be employed by State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the doctrine of public employment. It is also required to recruit employees in terms of the provisions of the rules for recruitment framed by it. The respondent had not regularly served the appellant. The job was not of perenial nature. There was nothing to show that he, when his services were terminated any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained. His services were dispensed with as early as in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with back wages. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if instead and in place of reinstatement of his services, a sum of Rs. 75,000 is awarded to the respondent by way of compensation as has been done by this Court in a number of its judgments.(See State of Rajasthan V. Ghyan Chand, [2006] 7 SCC 755.)" In State of Rajasthan Vs. Sarjeet Singh and Another reported in (2006) 8 SCC 508, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if it is assumed that there is violation of Section 25-G or 25-H of the ID Act, but in any event, the same would not mean that the Labour Court should have automatically passed an award of reinstatement in service with back wages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of that case, awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement of workman with back wages. Para 16 of the judgment reads as under: "In terminating the services of Respondent 1, we would assume that violation of Section 25-G or 25-H occurred(although there is no factual basis therefor), but in any event, the same would not mean that the Labour Court should have automatically passed an award of reinstatement in service with back wages. We, however, although ordinarily would have set aside the impugned award and consequently the judgment of the High Court; in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct the State to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 to Respondent 1. Such payment should be made within eight weeks from date failing which the same shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid directions. The parties shall pay and bear their own costs." ;