Summary
The Court held that compensation, rather than reinstatement, was appropriate for a daily-wage employee retrenched in breach of Section 25-F. Completion of 240 days and the statutory violation were established, but retention of juniors and unfair labour practice had not been proved. Reinstatement was therefore not automatic. Taking account of the employment history and lapse of time, the Court directed payment of a further Rs 3.25 lakh over the Rs 25,000 already paid, within eight weeks, in full and final settlement. The appeal was partly allowed.
Issues
- Whether breach of Section 25-F required reinstatement of this daily-wage worker or could be remedied by enhanced compensation.
Provisions considered
- Section 25-F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The established breach rendered retrenchment unlawful, but did not automatically determine reinstatement as the appropriate remedy for this daily-wage worker. (¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 6)
Held
- A public employer was not absolved from complying with Section 25-F merely because questions arose about the legality of the original appointment. The statutory violation here was established. (¶¶ 2, 4, 6)
- Reinstatement with back wages was not an automatic consequence of a procedural retrenchment violation concerning a daily-wage employee. The cited rule favouring compensation preserved different treatment where unfair labour practice or retention or regularisation of juniors was established. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- The worker had failed to produce convincing evidence that juniors were retained, and there was no finding of unfair labour practice. His daily-wage status and the circumstances justified compensation instead of reinstatement. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- A further Rs 3.25 lakh was directed over the Rs 25,000 already paid. Payment within eight weeks of judgment was to constitute full and final settlement of all the appellant’s claims. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; additional compensation of Rs 3.25 lakh payable within eight weeks in full and final settlement, without reinstatement.