1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1. Though served, none appears for the respondent No.2.
2. This petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.12.2011 passed by the Labour Court (S.D.), Anand, in Reference (L.C.A.) No.171 of 1999, whereby Labour Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with 10% backwages with continuity of service along with all consequential benefits, within 30 days from the publication of the award.
3. The facts in short are such that the respondent workman worked with the petitioner as Chowkidar i.e. with Petlad Irrigation Sub Division, Manej Section Part IV since 1984. The presence of the respondent was filled by the muster clerk. The respondent was paying Rs.800/ as salary. The respondent had completed 240 days and as such he was entitled for leave and bonus. No identity car, presence card and pay slips have been issued to the respondent. On 21.12.1995, the service of the respondent was terminated from the service without any reason, though he completed 240 days of service in each of the year. Therefore, the respondent workman issued demand notice on 15.1.1999 for his reinstatement of his service. The action of the petitioner in terminating services of the respondent is totally illegal, incorrect and in violation of provisions of Section 25(F), (G) and H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, industrial dispute has been raised by the respondent before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Anand and he referred said Reference before the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court (S.D.), Anand for adjudicating the issue. After considering the evidence on record, Labour Court partly allowed Reference. Therefore, the petitioner preferred this petition.
4. Learned AGP for the petitioner submitted that the respondent workman has not completed 240 days in continuous five years, therefore, the respondent is not entitled for reinstatement. The respondent workman was not permanent employee and he was Rojamdar. He further submitted that the respondent workman himself stopped the work and he preferred Reference after a period of more than 10 years with a view to get the benefits of GR dated 17.10.1988. He prayed to quash and set aside the award passed by the learned Labour Court by allowing this petition.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and same is required to be confirmed by dismissing the petition. He further submitted that the said workman is now retired after attending the age of superannuation.
6. Perused the case of the petitioner and considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. The respondent workman has now retired from the service as he attained the age of superannuation. The Labour Court partly allowed the Reference of the workman by awarding 10% backwages with reinstatement with continuity of service along with consequential benefits. It appears from the record that the workman has not completed 240 days of the service. The respondent now has retired from the service and therefore, instead of reinstatement of the respondent workman, monetary compensation of lumpsum amount would subserve the ends of justice.
7. I have referred 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. It is held in that case that it is required to be noted that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if the termination is fund to be illegal or in contravention of the case prescribed procedure and monetary compensation in case of such nature may be appropriate. In the present case, considering the 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.40,000/ (Rupees Forty Thousand only) as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, within three months from today, failing which the respondent will be entitled for 8% interest on the said amount, from the date of his superannuation till the payment is made. If the petitioner fails to make such payment to the respondent, then disciplinary action will be taken against the erring officer. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
YNVYAS (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)