01Facts
The respondents were daily-wage workers employed by the appellant employers, including the Life Insurance Corporation of India, banks and the Water Resources Department.
¶ 4–6Following termination, the Labour Court/CGIT found that the workers had completed 240 days of service and that termination was unlawful for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
¶ 4–6It awarded monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
¶ 4–6The Single Judge allowed the workers’ writ petitions, set aside the compensation awards and directed reinstatement; review petitions were dismissed.
¶ 4–6The employers appealed.
¶ 4–6The respondents had not been reinstated and had remained out of service for more than two decades
¶ 4–602Issues
i.Whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy for the respondents’ unlawful termination, given their daily-wage status and the long period since termination
¶ 6ii.Whether monetary compensation should be awarded in lieu of reinstatement and, if so, whether the compensation should be enhanced
¶ 13, 2003Law Applied
Under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, retrenchment in breach of the prescribed requirements is unlawful; however, reinstatement with back wages is not an automatic consequence, and relief may be moulded to the circumstances.
¶ 13–19The Court relied on U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal and Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh, among other authorities, for the principle that compensation may be appropriate for daily-wage workers, particularly after a long lapse of time
¶ 13–19It also referred to State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) in support of the principle that work as a daily wager does not, by itself, confer a right to regular appointment
¶ 14Applying Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd., SLP (Civil) No. 20902/2024, the Court adopted compensation of Rs. 1.5 lakh for each year worked, calculated pro rata for any part of a year
¶ 19Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 Section 23Section 48Section 49
04Reasoning
The Court considered that the respondents had worked as daily wagers for limited periods and had been out of employment for more than two decades.
¶ 12–13, 19–20In those circumstances, reinstatement would not serve a useful purpose and could not be justified merely because termination violated Section 25F.
¶ 12–13, 19–20The Labour Court’s compensation-based remedy was therefore more appropriate than the Single Judge’s direction to reinstate the respondents.
¶ 12–13, 19–20However, the existing compensation was liable to enhancement under the formula applied in Amit Kumar Dubey
¶ 12–13, 19–2005Holding
The Court held that the respondents were entitled to monetary compensation, not reinstatement.
¶ 19–21It partly allowed the appeals to the extent of enhancing compensation to Rs. 1.5 lakh per year of service, with pro-rata calculation for a part-year, and directed payment within three months
¶ 19–21Original Court PDF
Water Resources Department Division DamohvsMunna Singh Thakur
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
