LALA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner challenges the award dated 15/10/1999 (Annexure-9) to the extent it has refused the reinstatement after finding the retrenchment of the petitioner by the respondent-employer was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947 ") and not valid and has granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 90,0007- in all as the compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

(2.) In the first instance learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by catena of decisions of Supreme Court law has been well settled that on finding retrenchment to be invalid in non-compliance of any provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act of 1947, the reinstatement is necessary consequence but the matter of grant of back wages may be within the discretion of adjudicating Tribunal and therefore the Labour Court was patently in error in denying theTeinstatement on the basis of decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Others, AIR 1992 SC 789 : 1992 (4) SCC 99 : 1992-II-LLJ-452 which was not a case of invalid retrenchment but deals with issue of parity in emoluments and regularisation of ad hoc and temporary employee solely on the basis of some duration of employment. He places reliance in support of his contention on decisions of Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt, Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 1979 SC 75 : 1979 (2) SCC 80 : 1978-II-LLJ-474, and Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and another, AIR 1981 SC 422 : 1980 (4) SCC 443 : 1981-I-LLJ- 386, Mohanlal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253 : 1981 (3) SCC 225 : 1981-II-LLJ-70, Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass, AIR 1984 SC 500 : 1984 (1) SCC 509 : 1984-I-LLJ-233, and Narotarn Chopra v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 97.

(3.) Having carefully considered the contention I am of the opinion that the principle that can be deduced from the aforesaid decisions cannot travel beyond that ordinarily reinstatement be granted, where retrenchment is found to be invalid but ultimately it is within the discretion of the Court deciding validity of retrenchment to devise the appropriate relief in the given circumstances and therefore what actual relief has been granted in particular case by itself may not be precedent but only can be an illustrative guideline for consideration while considering the facts and circumstances of each case on its own merit by the Court.