VADIA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. PRATAPBHAI DADBHAI KOTILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one appears for the respondent though notice has been served. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that instead of deciding the Civil Application, main Letters Patent Appeal itself may be decided. On the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, we have taken up Letters Patent Appeal itself for final disposal. We have heard Mr.Kamal Sojitra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

(2.) THIS intra-court Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.3.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4993 of 2009 by which the award of the Labour Court, to reinstate with continuity of service and back wages has been awarded. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others (2010) 6 SCC 773 and in Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Bord and another (2009) 15 SCC 327 has held that in case of violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reinstatement and back wages should not be granted and lumpsum monetary compensation shall be awarded. In view of these decisions, it is clear that instead of back wages, monetary compensation is to be awarded. Even reinstatement cannot be granted as a matter of course, but in this case, after termination of the service of the workman, the appellant has made a fresh appointment which has been considered by the Labour Court. Therefore, in view of the fact that there is a need of work and the appellant has again appointed a workman in place of the respondent, therefore, the termination of the respondent's service without paying any compensation was illegal as the respondent has worked for sufficient number of years with the appellant. We are in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.