SUSHIL KUMAR MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's services as Munshi i. e. clerk were terminated by way of retrenchment on October 1, 1990. He raised dispute before the competent authority and the reference was made to the Labour Court, Jodhpur for its adjudication. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the evidence on the record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner was against law, therefore, by its award dated October 6, 1998 (Annexure 3), the said order of termination was set aside. However, as the petitioner was in fixed pay and appointed as daily wager and the post of Munshi i. e. clerk was also abolished, therefore, in its discretion, the Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs. 16,000/- to the respondent workman instead of passing the order of reinstatement with backwages. This part of the award giving compensation instead of reinstatement with backwages has been challenged by the petitioner workman.

(2.) FROM the record, it is clear that the petitioner was not appointed on regular post and in permanent capacity. His appointment was on daily wages at a rate of Rs. 18/- per day for a fixed period. On abolition of post, his services were terminated and he was paid the cheque for Rs. 3,302/- with the termination order. On abolition of post, there was no question of reinstatement, therefore, it cannot be said that the Labour Court committed any error in passing the order of compensation because the same was in its discretion. In case of Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Second Addl. Labour Court, reported in 1985ii-LLJ-505 the High Court of Madras has observed that "where the retrenchment infringed Section 25-F but was otherwise bona fide and reinstatement was likely to be destructive to the employer, the Labour Court can award suitable compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. "

(3.) THUS, on peculiar facts of this case, it cannot be said that the Labour Court committed any error in passing the impugned award partly in favour of the petitioner awarding compensation but denying reinstatement with backwages.