Summary
A daily-wage peon-cum-driver obtained reinstatement with 40% back wages from the Labour Court, while parallel civil proceedings had ended against him. Considering his short service, the conflicting proceedings and the 25-year interval since termination, the Supreme Court substituted lump-sum compensation for reinstatement and back wages.
Issues
- Whether reinstatement and back wages should be replaced by compensation for a daily-wage employee after a long interval.
- Whether the finding of a Section 25-G violation required reinstatement on these facts.
Held
- Reinstatement with back wages is not automatic for a daily-wage worker whose termination violates retrenchment procedure. Applying BSNL v Bhurumal, the Court considered short daily-wage service, parallel litigation with conflicting outcomes and the long lapse since termination material to the appropriate relief. (¶ 13–14)
- Bhurumal recognises that unfair labour practice, retention of juniors or regularisation of juniors ordinarily favours reinstatement, subject to weighty reasons. Despite the Labour Court’s Section 25-G finding here, the overall record and absence of unfair practice justified monetary relief. The decision did not establish that every Section 25-G violation permits compensation alone. (¶ 14–16)
- Rs 2,50,000 was awarded in full and final satisfaction of reinstatement, back wages and consequential claims. Payment was required within three months of receipt of judgment; on default, interest at 9% would run from the judgment date until payment. (¶ 16–19)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; High Court orders set aside and Labour Court award modified to Rs 2,50,000 compensation, payable within three months of receipt, with 9% interest from judgment until payment upon default.