Conditional service for fifteen months warrants lumpsum compensation instead of back wages or reinstatement benefits.

The appellant was appointed as a Warden on January 30, 1997, in the pay scale of Rs. 1150–1500, following an interview.

Her appointment was expressively subject to approval by the State Government; however, the State withheld approval.

Due to the appellant's unwillingness to wait for said approval, the school terminated her services on April 30, 1998, after she had served for approximately 15 months.

The appellant initially filed a civil suit in 1998, which was dismissed in 2018 for lack of jurisdiction, though she received arrears for the period worked during those proceedings.

She subsequently approached the Labour Court, which found the termination incorrect but, noting her superannuation, awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 70,000/-.

A Single Judge of the High Court later enhanced this to Rs. 1,70,000/-.

The appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal seeking back wages and retirement benefits.

1. Whether a workman is automatically entitled to back wages, continuity of service, and retirement benefits upon a finding of faulty termination when the initial appointment was conditional and of short duration.

2. Whether the enhancement of lump sum compensation to Rs. 1,70,000/- by the learned Single Judge was just and proper under the circumstances.

The Court applied the principle of judicial discretion in granting relief for wrongful termination, establishing that reinstatement or full back wages are not automatic consequences of an illegal termination.

It relied on the doctrine that the nature of the appointment (conditional vs. regular) and the length of service (tenure) are critical factors in determining whether lump sum compensation is more appropriate than reinstatement or back wages.

The Court reasoned that the appellant’s claim for full benefits could not be sustained because her appointment was "not a normal appointment but a conditional appointment," contingent upon State approval which never materialized.

The Court highlighted that the appellant had only worked for a very limited period of 15 months before her services were terminated due to her own refusal to wait for the requisite sanction.

Given that the appellant had already reached the age of superannuation and had not performed duties since 1998, the Court found the argument for back wages and retirement benefits "completely improper".

The Court concluded that the Labour Court’s decision to opt for compensation over reinstatement was justified by the facts, and the Single Judge’s upward revision of the amount provided adequate relief.

The Court affirmed that in cases of short-term conditional appointments, lump sum compensation is the appropriate remedy for faulty termination. The Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge granting an enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/-, finding it just and proper.