Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -State (Forest Department) has filed the present writ petition (CW No. 2144/2000) being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 28.10.1999 passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar in Labour Case No. 40/98 (6/94) - Manak Chand vs. Dy. Conservator of Forest, Sri Ganganagar, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal has held that termination of the respondent/workman -Manak Chand S/o. Kanhaiya Lal, w.e.f. 04.06.1985 was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short hereinafter, referred to as 'Act of 1947'). The respondent/workman was employed on daily wages worker in the petitioner -Forest Department w.e.f. 06.06.1983. The learned Industrial Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman in service with 20% back wages.
(2.) BY the orders of the coordinate bench of this Court, the petitioner -State through its Forest Department was directed to make payment of wages to the respondent/workman u/s. 17 -B of the Act of 1947. The orders dated 13.04.2009 and 20.11.2013 in the present are quoted below for ready reference: - Order dated 13.04.2009 "An application is preferred as per provisions of Sec. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated by the respondent -workman that he is not at all in any gainful employment and therefore, the petitioner employer should make payment of wages month -by month as per provisions of sec. 17B of the Act of 1947. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent -workman that despite no order staying operation and effect of the award dated 28th October, 1999, the petitioner -employer has not reinstated the workman and as such, the employer deserves prosecution as per provisions of sec. 25 -U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Shri R.L. Jangid, learned Addl. Advocate General wants some time to examine the matter. Time prayed for is allowed. Put up on 20th April, 2009." Order dated 20.11.2013 "Learned counsel for the respondent submits that despite order dated 13.4.2009 no payment has been made to the workman as per provisions of Section 17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Shri R.L. Jangid submits that if the amount aforesaid has not been paid, same shall be paid to the workman forthwith. Let this writ petition be listed for final disposal on 23.11.2013 alongwith SBCWP No. 5919/2004. In the meanwhile, the employer shall make payment of all dues accruing to the workman in pursuant to order dated 18.11.2003." Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/workman has stated at Bar that the respondent/workman has not been paid the wages in terms of the aforesaid orders of this Court.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the respondent/workman, this Court is of the opinion that reinstatement of the respondent/workman after more than 29 years now will not sub -serve the interest of justice and in view of recent trend of the Hon'ble Apex Court in such cases of late now, the consistent view is that the reinstatement in such circumstances after long number of years, is not justified and in lieu of reinstatement, suitable compensation may be given to the retrenched workmen.;