Grant of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate for procedural breaches involving ad hoc employees.

The Appellant was appointed as a ‘Laboratory Attendant’ by the Respondent on an ad hoc basis via several temporary appointment letters between 1997 and 2000

His services were relieved on December 22, 2000, upon the expiry of his last contract. The Appellant claimed he worked for 813 days and sought regularization

The Labour Court found the termination was in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act) and directed reinstatement with 40% back wages

On appeal, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court modified this award, directing lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 in lieu of reinstatement, while upholding the 40% back wages

The Appellant challenged this modification, seeking full back wages and reinstatement

notably, the present appeal was filed with a delay of 233 days, attributed to the bereavement of the Appellant’s counsel

1. Whether the delay of 233 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

2. Whether the Single Judge was justified in substituting the relief of reinstatement with monetary compensation in a case involving ad hoc employment

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding "sufficient cause" for delay, emphasizing that negligence or lack of bona fides precludes condonation (Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA) and Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan)

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Regarding relief, the Court relied on the "shift in legal position" established in BSNL v. Bhurumal and Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, which holds that reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of illegal termination for daily-wage or temporary workers; monetary compensation is often the appropriate remedy for procedural lapses

Regarding the delay, the Court found the Appellant’s explanations inconsistent, noting that even after obtaining certified copies, the appeal remained unfiled for three months, demonstrating a lack of due diligence

On merits, the Court observed that the Appellant was never appointed against a sanctioned post through regular recruitment but was an ad hoc employee who failed in two subsequent regular selection processes

The Court emphasized that the Appellant had ignored the Respondent's offer to join duty during the pendency of the writ petition, suggesting he was either gainfully employed elsewhere or uninterested in the position

Applying Bhurumal, the Court reasoned that since the Appellant was a temporary worker whose termination involved a procedural defect (Section 25F), and considering the long passage of time, reinstatement would be inappropriate

The Court answered that the Appellant’s conduct regarding the delay and his failure to rejoin service when offered disentitled him to any further relief

The final holding confirmed the award of 40% back wages and the additional lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000