A six-year delay does not justify nominal compensation; ₹2 lakh was awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

The petitioner worked as a Chokidar with the respondent from 10 December 1980. He alleged that his services were terminated on 10 May 1984 and raised an industrial dispute, resulting in Reference (LCR) No. 101 of 1991 before the Labour Court, Rajkot.

The Labour Court declined reinstatement but awarded compensation of ₹3,000 for violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the termination was illegal and sought reinstatement, back wages, or alternatively enhanced lump-sum compensation, particularly since he had reached the age of superannuation by 2009.

The respondent opposed the petition on the grounds of delay, failure to establish 240 days of service in the relevant period, and failure to prove the alleged termination.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement, back wages, or other consequential benefits despite the delay in raising the industrial dispute and the Labour Court’s findings regarding proof of termination and completion of 240 days’ service?

Whether the compensation of ₹3,000 awarded by the Labour Court required enhancement in lieu of reinstatement and consequential benefits, considering the petitioner’s superannuation?

The Court considered the principles under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, concerning the preferential right of retrenched workmen to re-employment, as invoked in the Labour Court’s award.

It applied the established labour-law principle that, where reinstatement is impracticable—particularly because the workman has reached superannuation—the Court may award lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and consequential benefits.

The Court also relied on the compensation approach adopted by the Division Bench in Range Forest Officer v. Haribhai Manjibhai Rathod, LPA No. 106 of 2026, read with the guidelines in Bhikhabhai Fatabhai Solanki v. Executive Engineer, Narmada Project Canal System & Another, LPA No. 908, under which the quantum of compensation is adjusted having regard to the delay in challenging termination.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had not established completion of 240 days’ service during the relevant period from 10 May 1983 to 9 May 1984, had not effectively controverted the respondent’s documentary evidence, and had also failed to establish that his services were terminated on 10 May 1984.

The Court further considered the approximately six-year delay between the alleged termination in 1984 and the raising of the Reference in 1990.

Although these circumstances militated against reinstatement and full back wages, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation by 2009, making reinstatement unavailable in practical terms.

Applying the Division Bench’s approach to compensation in delayed labour claims, the Court held that the Labour Court’s award of ₹3,000 was inadequate and that a higher lump-sum amount was justified in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits.

The respondent was directed to pay the amount within eight weeks from receipt of the order. Rule was made absolute to that extent.