Delayed challenge to termination and award implementation warrants lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

The appellant/workman was terminated from service in June 1985 after approximately three years of employment. He initiated a legal dispute six years later in 1991

In 2009, a Labour Court award directed his reinstatement with continuity of service but denied backwages

The workman did not seek implementation of the award until 2015 via Special Civil Application No. 14976 of 2015

Consequently, the State challenged the 2009 award in 2016

The learned Single Judge set aside the award, finding that the workman failed to prove 240 days of service in each of the three years and noting the gross delays in seeking relief

1. Whether the gross delay and laches on the part of the workman in raising a dispute and executing the award disentitle him from the relief of reinstatement

2. Whether the concurrent laches on the part of the State in challenging the award warrants a modification of the Single Judge's order to provide equitable relief

The court applied the equitable principle of "Laches and Delay," which posits that extraordinary delay in approaching a forum or executing a decree can disentitle a party to discretionary relief, as it implies an absence of grievance or a waiver of rights

It also considered the principle of "Substantial Justice," allowing for financial compensation in lieu of reinstatement when both parties are guilty of procedural lapses but the passage of time (40 years) makes original relief impractical

The court found that the workman’s six-year delay in raising a dispute after his 1985 termination, followed by another six-year delay in executing the 2009 award, demonstrated a "disinclination to be reinstated" and an absence of a genuine grievance

While the workman failed to establish the statutory requirement of 240 days of service, the court also observed a "serious lapse" on the part of the State, which waited six years to challenge the Labour Court’s award

Given that 40 years had passed since the termination, the court determined that reinstatement is no longer feasible; however, because the State "slept over the matter," the court balanced the equities. It held that while the termination should be maintained, the workman deserved a one-time financial settlement to meet the ends of justice

The court dismissed the plea for reinstatement but modified the impugned order to grant a lump-sum compensation. ... it ordered the State to pay the workman ₹50,000/- as financial compensation within four weeks

The appeal was disposed of with the termination maintained and the compensation awarded