Grant of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement for illegal termination of near-superannuation employee.

The respondent-workman was engaged as an Assistant Clerk (alleged by petitioners to be a part-timer) from February 1992 until April 14, 2001

During the pendency of a reference for regularization (Reference IT No. 143/2000), his services were terminated

While the petitioner claimed the workman abandoned his service, the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, found the termination illegal and violative of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act

The Tribunal ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages via an award dated January 11, 2017

The petitioners challenged this award under Articles 226 and 227, noting the workman is due for superannuation on August 31, 2026

1. Whether the termination of the respondent-workman’s service was illegal and in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act

2. Whether reinstatement is the appropriate remedy when an employee is on the verge of superannuation

Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which prohibits changing conditions of service or termination during the pendency of proceedings before a Tribunal without following due process

Section 25F regarding the requirements for valid retrenchment

The established judicial principle that where reinstatement is not "plausible" or "practically possible"—specifically when an employee has reached or is nearing the age of superannuation—lump sum compensation should be awarded in lieu of reinstatement

The court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the termination was illegal. It rejected the petitioners’ "hollow contention" of abandonment, noting they failed to produce evidence of attempts to recall the workman or explain his absenteeism

The court observed that since the workman is set to retire on August 31, 2026, actual reinstatement would be impractical

In determining the quantum of compensation, the court accounted for the nature of work, the nine-year length of service, the low monthly salary of Rs. 900 at the time of termination, and the fact that the dispute regarding regularization had already been rejected in 2017

The court concluded that a one-time payment was the most equitable resolution to settle terminal benefits and the illegality of the discharge

It held that the respondent-workman is entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and all ancillary benefits

The petitioners were directed to pay this amount within eight weeks, failing which an interest rate of 6% per annum would apply from the date of termination (April 14, 2001) until realization