Compensation in lieu of reinstatement was upheld, considering the workman’s long service, age, and prolonged litigation.

F. Joseph was employed as a Helper in Sankara Nethralaya, a non-profit medical organisation, and assisted doctors in the operation theatre. He had approximately 15 years of service and was found in possession of medical equipment, including a glass syringe and injection needles, while leaving the establishment. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted after he denied the charges and claimed that the equipment had been taken for use in the operation theatre. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved, following which the Management terminated his employment

The appellant raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.55 of 2000. The I Additional Labour Court upheld the termination but awarded him compensation of ₹3,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement, having regard to his 15 years of service

The Management challenged the compensation award in W.P.No.11946 of 2014, and the Writ Court set aside the Labour Court’s award. The present intra-court appeal was filed by the workman against that order

The Management also submitted that the appellant’s separate writ appeal challenging the termination had been dismissed

Whether the Writ Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court’s award of ₹3,00,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, despite the appellant’s 15 years of service?

Whether, having regard to the prolonged pendency of the proceedings and the appellant’s age, the Labour Court’s compensation award should be restored?

The Court applied the principle that, in adjudicating an industrial dispute involving termination, the Labour Court may, in appropriate circumstances, sustain the termination while granting monetary compensation instead of reinstatement, taking into account factors such as the employee’s length of service, age, and the overall circumstances of the dispute

The Court also applied the principle that prolonged litigation and delay may be relevant in determining appropriate monetary relief. No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment

The Court noted that the Labour Court had considered the Enquiry Officer’s findings, the evidence, and the documents before upholding the termination, while separately granting ₹3,00,000 as compensation based on the appellant’s 15 years of service

Although the appellant argued that mere possession of the medical equipment could not amount to theft, the Court did not disturb the underlying termination, particularly in view of the Management’s submission that the appellant’s separate challenge to the termination had been dismissed

The Court focused instead on the appropriateness of the compensatory relief. It held that the writ proceedings had remained pending for approximately 12 years and that the appellant was then 68 years old. These circumstances, together with his length of service, justified restoring the Labour Court’s award

The order dated 05.06.2023 in W.P.No.11946 of 2014 was set aside, and the Labour Court’s award of ₹3,00,000 compensation was restored. The Management was directed to pay the compensation to the appellant within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment