This writ petition is directed against the award of the labour Court dated 2.7.1993 whereby instead of reinstatement, the Tribunal has awarded the petitioner compensation.
The dispute arose in the following circumstances:
The petitioner was engaged as Black-smith by respondent No.2 i.e. M/s Kisan Sahakari Chini Mill, Ltd, Ghosi, district Mau on 14.10.1993. His services were dispensed with. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4 of the Industrial Dispute Act, referred the matter to the respondent No.1. The dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 212 of 1987. The reference was in following terms:-
"KYA SEWAYAJKO DWARA APNE KARMCHARI RAM AWADH VISHWAKARMA PUTRA SRI BHAGERU VISHWAKARMA KO DINAK 5.6.86 SE KARYA SE PRITHAK/ VANCHIT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHWA VAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAHI, THO SAMBANDHIT SRAMIK KYA LABH/ ANUTOSH (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI, TATHA KISI ANNYA VIVRAN SAHIT ?"
Before the labour Court, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 M/s Kisan Sahakari Chini Mill, Ltd. Ghosi filed their written statements. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner was working on the post of Black-Smith from 14.10.1983 and on the basis of Rs.15/- per day, his work and conduct have been satisfactory. The nature of the work was permanent and on 5th June, 1986 petitioner's services were terminated in violation of the provision of Industrial Dispute Act in as much as there was no compliance of Section 6-N of the said Act. Thus, he was entitled for reinstatement with full back-wages.
The respondent No.2 in their written statement had taken stand that petitioner was not appointed against any post. He was employed on daily wages basis and he had not worked after 1986. It was also stated that in the year 1985-86, selection for the appointment of Black-Smith was held but the petitioner could not qualify and some other person was appointed and, as such, there is no vacancy on the said post. The petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis and he has been paid his wages in terms of the contract.
The Labour Court vide award dated 2.7.1993 has found that the petitioner's services were dispensed with without following the procedure prescribed under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. However, the labour Court has further found that the petitioner was not entitled for reinstatement as he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee for the post of Black-Smith. The labour Court in lieu of reinstatement has awarded compensation to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.15,000/-.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
As far as the finding of the labour Court that employer, respondent No.2 has not complied with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Act, as such, the termination of the petitioner was illegal. I am of the view that it does not suffer any illegality. The employers have not challenged said finding. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the labour Court has recorded a finding that there was non-compliance of Section 6-N of the Act, reinstatement was automatic and the labour court has erred in refusing him to grant the relief of reinstatement.
Earlier in the matter of reinstatement, the view of Supreme Court was that if termination/Dismissal/removal is set aside, the reinstatement is automatic. (Tika Ram & Sons Ltd. Vs. Workman, A.I.R. 1960, S.C.198 M.L.Bose & Co.(P) Ltd Vs. Employees, A.I.R. 1961, S.C. 1198, Hindustan TIN Works Employees, A.I.R. 1979, S.C.,75. Now the recent trend of Supreme Court is in favour of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Following discussion and conclusion are apt and relevant for this matter.
3. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, delivering the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi, State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban, Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, GDA v. Ashok Kumar, and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case, SCC pp. 330 & 335, paras 7 & 14) "7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.
* * *
14.It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee."
4. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein this Court stated: (SCC p. 777, para 11) "11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice."
Therefore, the award dated 2.7.1993 is modified to the extent that the petitioner would not be entitled for any reinstatement and back wages.
However, in totality of the circumstances, the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the labour Court is a meagre amount. The reference was made in 1987. The labour court gave its award in 1993. The petitioner filed the petition in 1994, which remain pending for more than 17 years. Thus, in my view interest of justice would be best served if the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to cost.
Dt.26.4.2012 SKD