Delayed challenge bars reinstatement as of right, but equitable lump-sum compensation may still be awarded.

The appellant-workman, along with nine similarly placed workmen, challenged the termination of their services. The Labour Court held the terminations illegal but awarded lump-sum compensation ranging from ₹7,000 to ₹14,000; the appellant was awarded ₹7,000.

The nine other workmen challenged the awards in 2013. In 2016, the learned Single Judge modified their awards and directed reinstatement instead of compensation. The decision was upheld by the Division Bench and thereafter by the Supreme Court in the State’s SLP.

The appellant approached the High Court only in 2020. The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition on the ground of delay.

In the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant sought parity with the nine companion workmen. It was stated that he had approximately eight years of service remaining.

Whether the appellant, being part of the same group of ten workmen, was entitled to reinstatement on the same basis as the nine workmen who had successfully challenged the Labour Court’s awards.

Whether, despite the appellant’s delay of more than seven years in approaching the Court, the Court could grant lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

If compensation was appropriate, what amount should be awarded under the guidelines referred to in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023.

The Court applied the principle that relief under writ jurisdiction may be denied where a claimant has slept over his rights and approached the Court after substantial delay; consequently, a claimant cannot demand delayed relief as a matter of right merely because similarly placed persons obtained relief earlier.

At the same time, where similarly situated workmen have received reinstatement, the Court may mould relief in the interests of justice by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

The Court relied on the compensation guidelines stipulated in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023, under which a workman having five to ten years of remaining service was eligible for ₹3,000,000/- compensation.

No specific statutory provision was cited in the judgment.

The Court accepted that the appellant was similarly situated to the nine workmen whose terminations had been held illegal and whose awards had been modified to grant reinstatement.

Ordinarily, this similarity would support granting him the same relief. However, the appellant had approached the Court only in 2020, more than seven years after the other workmen initiated proceedings, and his delay disentitled him from claiming reinstatement as of right.

Since the denial of reinstatement was based solely on delay, and since the appellant still had approximately eight years of service remaining, the Court considered compensation to be an equitable alternative.

Applying the stated guidelines for five to ten years of remaining service, it quantified compensation at ₹3,000,000/-.

The order dismissing the writ petition was modified. The State was directed to pay the appellant ₹3,000,000/- as lump-sum compensation in lieu of all his claims within eight weeks from 30 July 2026.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

The judgment states the numerical amount as ₹3,000,000/- but describes it in words as “Rupees Three Lakhs”; the numerical figure corresponds to ₹30 lakhs.