PARIYOJNA ADHIKARI Vs. MANNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The short issue raised in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in substituting the award of payment of compensation in lieu of illegal retrenchment with reinstatement along with consequential benefits?

(3.) The respondent-workman was employed under the appellant for a total period from 30.01.1988 to 02.05.1992 and his services were terminated from 02.05.1992. The termination was subject-matter of industrial dispute, which was referred to Labour Court, Jodhpur (for short 'the Labour Court' hereinafter). By award dated 02.11.1998, the Labour Court found that the respondent workman having been in continuous service for about four years, having actually worked for 240 days in each calendar year of the entire period of his service, his retrenchment could have been validly affected only by complying with the conditions of retrenchment under Chapter V A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947' hereinafter). Admittedly, there having been no compliance of Section 25 F of the Act of 1947, the retrenchment was held to be invalid. However, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the dispute has been raised and referred after seven and a half years, the Labour Court opined that reinstatement in such cases is not an appropriate relief. Instead, it awarded Rs.41,000/- by way of lump sum compensation.