1. The present petition is filed challenging the award dated 01.05.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 895 of 1987 whereby the labour court partly allowing the reference directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with 25% backwages.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was working as Badli workman in place of one Shri Nanubhai who was employed with the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was being given job-work as and when work was available and was being paid on the basis of work done on piece rate basis. The respondent thereafter joined other service after settling the accounts with the petitioner. However, in the year 1987, the respondent filed reference before the Labour Court against the petitioner. The Labour Court after hearing the petitioners passed the aforesaid award of reinstatement with backwages. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.
3. Mr. KM Patel, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex. 11 which is receipt dated 05.04.1985 and submitted that the same is virtually a resignation and receipt of settlement of dues. He submitted that it is mentioned therein that the respondent has got another job and was leaving the service of the petitioner for better prospects and that he has accepted the legal dues payable to him and that he has no dispute with the petitioner.
3.1 Mr. Patel further submitted that the award qua reinstatement is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the respondent was working a badli workman for 8 to 10 days in a month with the petitioner and therefore for the rest of the days worked elsewhere.
3.2 In the alternative, Mr. Patel submitted that considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773 the petitioner is ready and willing to pay lumpsum compensation to the petitioner in lieu of his claim.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the records of the case, this Court is of the view that considering the small scale unit run by the petitioner where the respondent was working as a Badli workman in place of one Shri Nanubhai coupled with the fact that the respondent was being given job work as and when required, relief of reinstatement with backwages to him cannot be said to be justified. The respondent himself has admitted in the cross examination that the amount received by him as per Ex. 11 included the wages for February 1985, balance leave payment and ex-gratia payment. In that view of the matter, monetary compensation instead of reinstatement and backwages would subserve the ends of justice.
5. In the case of Senior Superintendent (supra), it is held that it is required to be noted that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if the termination is found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and monetary compensation in cases of such nature may be appropriate. In the present case considering the nature and limited period of employment of the respondent, awarding monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages shall be justified.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay the respondent workman Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement with 25% backwages. Such payment shall be made within a period of two months from today. The award of the Labour Court is substituted accordingly. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) divya