- (1.) Through this writ petition, the Municipal Corporation has approached this Court against the order (Annex. P/3) dated 20.6.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur in Labour Dispute No. 115/2000, whereby the industrial dispute referred at the instance of the respondent-workman Dharmnarayan Purohit under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act was accepted and the termination of the workman from service by an order dated 1.1.1997 was held to be illegal as having been effected in contravention of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act so also the order dated 8.8.2003 (Annex. P/8), whereby the restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking restoration of order dated 20.6.2001 (Annex. P/3) was rejected. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the material available on record. The Tribunal whilst accepting the reference held that the removal of the workman from service in the year 1997 was illegal and was effected in gross violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal further held that the workman had worked with the petitioner-department for a continuous period of 240 days in the preceding calendar year and therefore, his removal from service amounted to illegal retrenchment. Consequently, whilst holding the action of the departmental officials in terminating the workman from service to be illegal, the workman was directed to be reinstated in service with 25% wages by way of compensation and continuity in service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that unfortunately, the petitioner could not contest the claim filed on behalf of the respondent-employee and thus, without relevant material being considered, the Tribunal accepted the workman's claim and directed to reinstate him in service with 25% of back wages. He states that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid to the respondent-workman pursuant to the proceedings under section 17-B of the Act but till date, the respondent workman has not been reinstated in service. Learned counsel further states that the financial position of the petitioner Municipality is precarious and it has no funds to even sustain its regular employees. He thus prays that in view of the weak financial condition of the petitioner-Municipality, the respondent shall be paid compensation of Rs. 1 lac in addition to the amount already paid to him in the proceedings under section 17-B of the Act. He thus prays that the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned order should be quashed.
(2.) Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order and contends that the petitioner did not contest the claim before the Tribunal and thus, does not even entitle to challenge the same by way of the instant writ petition. He submits that as clear cut infringement of the mandatory requirement of the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was established by the respondent-workman before the Tribunal, there is no justification for this Court to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the Tribunal
(3.) Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the material available on record. Having regard to the fact that the workman-established her claim by placing appropriate material before the Tribunal and since the petitioner failed to controvert the same because it remained absent from the proceedings before the Tribunal, there is no reason to interfere in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the respondent-workman was retrenched illegally without complying with the mandatory requirements of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, keeping in view the ratio of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal, 2014 140 FLR 901 and B.S.N.L. v. Mansingh, 2012 132 FLR 500 this Court is of the opinion that the direction to reinstate the respondent-workman in service that too after a lapse of nearly 27 years is neither advisable practicable nor feasible nor justifiable. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be accepted in part and the respondent-employee should be paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac in lieu of reinstatement. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part. Whilst upholding the order of the Tribunal on the issue that the respondent-workman was illegally retrenched from service, the direction to reinstate the workman is hereby modified Now the workman-respondent shall be paid a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. It is made clear that the said amount of compensation would be in addition to the amount already paid to the workman in the proceedings under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. No order as to costs.;