SATYA NARAIN Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against award dtd. 31/8/2010 passed by the Labour Court, Kota (hereinafter to be referred as 'Labour Court') whereby the termination of the petitioner-workman was held to be in violation of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1947') and instead of reinstatement, the petitioner-employee was directed to be paid lump sum compensation of Rs.60,000.00 by the respondent-employer. Aggrieved thereby, the employee has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The factual matrix, in brief, reveals that the petitioner- workman was engaged by respondent No.2 on daily wages on 21/6/1997. His engagement was not pursuant to any regular process of recruitment, nor against a sanctioned post. Upon discontinuance of his services on 31/7/1998, an industrial dispute was raised in 1999, culminating in the impugned award dtd. 31/8/2010. The Labour Court, while recording a finding that the mandatory requirements of Sec. 25F of the Act of 1947 were not complied with, however, instead of relief of reinstatement, benefit of compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000.00 has been awarded.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner -workman challenged the impugned award and submitted that once the Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding of illegal retrenchment for non-compliance with Sec. 25F of the Act of 1947, reinstatement with continuity of service is the normal and logical relief. It was argued that denial of reinstatement would amount to legitimizing an illegal act of the employer. Learned counsel further contended that the workman had completed the requisite period of service to attract the protection of the Act of 1947 and that the Labour Court has failed to exercise its discretion in not granting relief of reinstatement. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 in support of his contentions.