Summary
The Supreme Court substituted Rs.1 lakh compensation for reinstatement of a daily-wage worker whose termination dispute was raised about fifteen years later. Applying Bhurumal, it held that reinstatement is not automatic for a procedural retrenchment defect. The short daily-wage tenure, absence of a right to regularisation or continued engagement, and long delay justified compensation in full and final settlement.
Issues
- Whether compensation should replace reinstatement for the daily-wage worker on the facts.
Provisions considered
- Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Court invoked the power to grant appropriate relief to substitute lump-sum compensation for reinstatement and consequential benefits. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- Under Bhurumal, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic where a daily-wage termination is illegal for a procedural Section 25F defect. The cited rule preserves different treatment for unfair labour practice, retention of juniors or discriminatory regularisation, absent weighty reasons. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Here the worker had served only a few years as a daily-wage or muster-roll employee and raised the dispute after about fifteen years. These circumstances warranted compensation rather than reinstatement. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Rs.1 lakh was awarded in full and final satisfaction of reinstatement, back wages and consequential claims, payable by the State within three months of receipt of the judgment. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; High Court order set aside and Labour Court award modified. State to pay Rs.1 lakh compensation within three months of receiving the judgment, in full and final settlement.