A 23-year lapse can make reinstatement impracticable, warranting lump-sum compensation instead.

The workman claimed that he had been appointed in 1992 and terminated on 30 April 2003.

He raised an industrial dispute in 2010, and the State referred it to the Labour Court.

The State contended that he had been engaged only as a casual daily wager when work was available and had not completed 240 days in any year.

The Labour Court drew an adverse inference from the State’s failure to produce employment records despite an order to do so, found that the workman had rendered continuous service and that his termination violated Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 10% back wages.

The Single Judge upheld the award, and the State appealed.

Whether the concurrent findings that the workman’s termination was unlawful and contrary to Section 25F could be disturbed in the appeal.

Whether reinstatement and 10% back wages remained appropriate relief given the passage of approximately 23 years since termination, or should be replaced by lump-sum compensation.

Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court or Tribunal, where a discharge or dismissal is unjustified, to set it aside and direct reinstatement on appropriate terms; the Court relied on that provision to support granting other appropriate relief in lieu of reinstatement in the circumstances.

Although reinstatement ordinarily follows a finding of unlawful termination, the remedy is not invariably appropriate, and back wages are discretionary.

The Court also referred to the compensation framework in LPA No. 908 of 2023, which calibrated lump-sum compensation by years of service, with the effect of delay in raising the reference taken into account.

The Division Bench declined to interfere with the concurrent factual findings: the management’s witness acknowledged the existence of employment records, but the records were not produced despite the workman’s application; the Labour Court’s resulting findings on employment and termination were therefore upheld.

However, the workman had been terminated in 2003, raised the dispute only in 2010, and the matter was being decided in 2026.

The Court considered reinstatement after about 23 years impracticable, particularly because the workman had been engaged on daily wages and was near the end of his working career.

Applying its discretion under Section 11A and taking guidance from the compensation approach in LPA No. 908 of 2023, the Court substituted lump-sum compensation for reinstatement and 10% back wages.

The connected civil application was also disposed of.