Summary
A watchman employed by the Kutch District Panchayat from 1992 was terminated in 2002 without notice while juniors were retained. Drawing an adverse inference from the missing muster rolls, the Labour Court found continuous service under Section 25B and a breach of Section 25G. In 2010 it ordered reinstatement without back wages, and the Single Judge agreed. After remand, the Division Bench left those findings intact but in 2021 replaced reinstatement with Rs. 1 lakh. The Supreme Court restored reinstatement. Substituting money while keeping the findings followed no known principle, and the workman could not be made to suffer for the employer's long litigation. Under Bhurumal, retention of juniors makes reinstatement the rule, and applying Hindustan Tin Works and Deepali Gundu Surwase, two years' back wages were added.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench, without disturbing the concurrent findings of illegal termination and retention of juniors, could substitute lump-sum compensation for reinstatement.
- Whether the workman should receive back wages despite the Labour Court's denial of them, given more than a decade of litigation by the employer.
Provisions considered
- Sections 25B and 25G, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Continuous service was established on the evidence and on an adverse inference from the missing muster rolls. Retaining juniors breached the 'last come, first go' rule in Section 25G. (¶¶ 4, 9)
- Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Under Bhurumal, compensation in place of reinstatement is generally reserved for daily-wagers terminated for procedural breaches of Section 25F. Where juniors were retained, reinstatement is the rule unless weighty reasons are recorded. (¶ 13)
Held
- The Labour Court and the Single Judge had considered the evidence fully, and the employer could not refute the workman's documents. The Division Bench did not disturb the findings, so its substitution of a lump sum for reinstatement followed no known principle. (¶¶ 9, 10, 14)
- Reinstatement is the normal relief for illegal termination, and denying back wages after long litigation penalises the workman and rewards the employer (Hindustan Tin Works, Deepali Gundu Surwase). Where juniors were retained in breach of 'last come, first go', reinstatement should not be denied (Bhurumal). (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The workman could not be made to suffer for the employer's obdurate litigation, which stretched more than a decade after the award. In addition to reinstatement with continuity, he was awarded back wages for the two years from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022 at current rates. (¶¶ 10, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed. The Division Bench's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was to be reinstated with continuity of service within six weeks. He was also to be paid back wages at current rates for 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022 within six weeks. No costs.