DEVI PRASAD Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER LAND CONVERSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for modifying the Award dated 22-2-2002 (Annx. 4) by way of granting the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner on the post Chairman with back wages and consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that on 14-12-1989, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis on the post of Chain man by the verbal order of the respondent Authority but his services were put to an end w. e. f. 31-12-1993 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the I. D. Act" ). On being reference made by the State Government, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur. THE respondents filed reply denying the averments made in the claim petition. THE Labour Court, vide its Award dated 22-2-2002 (Annx. 4), held the retrenchment illegal but instead of granting relief of reinstatement, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) INDISPUTABLY petitioner worked only for a short period as casual labour on daily wages. He was not regularly selected for the job. The gap from date of termination, i. e. 31-12-1993 to the date of passing of the award was a substantial one. Again between the date of the termination of the petitioner and filing of this petition, more than nine years have gone by. The petitioner has not been in touch with the job for about a period of ten years. It will not be appropriate to thrust the petitioner on the respondent employer after such a long time. In case the reinstatement is directed then the petitioner's position and status would remain that of casual labour on daily wages basis and if he claims regularisation then the questions of seniority, emoluments and promotion would arise. It may effect the seniority, and chances of promotions of employees who have been working in absence of the petitioner. Though the normal rule is to direct reinstatement of a workman whose services have been terminated in violation of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, reinstatement is not a must in every case. In a fit case it may not be expedient to order reinstatement on setting aside of the order of termination. In such a case compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be more desirable. I am fortified with the view by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rolston John vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Others (1), Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Malu Amra (2), Rattan Singh vs. Union of India and Another (3), O. P. Bhandari vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Others (4), and Sain Steel Products vs. Naipal Singh & Ors.