Illegal termination after 21 years’ service warranted re-engagement with compensation in lieu of back wages.

The workman had served the College for 21 years on a fixed-pay basis.

After he sought wages in accordance with the minimum-wage requirements by notice dated 15 September 2014, the College terminated his services on 20 September 2014.

He promptly initiated a labour reference in March 2015.

The Labour Court found violations of Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1996, but awarded ₹50,000 in lump-sum compensation instead of reinstatement.

The workman’s challenge resulted in the Single Judge enhancing compensation to ₹7,50,000.

Both parties appealed the Single Judge’s decision.

Whether, in light of the Labour Court’s findings of statutory violations and the workman’s 21 years of service, compensation without reinstatement was justified

Whether the enhanced compensation of ₹7,50,000 should stand and, if so, whether the workman should be reinstated or re-engaged

The Court applied Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which regulate retrenchment conditions, the principle of “last come, first go,” and preference for retrenched workmen in re-employment; it also considered Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1996.

The judgment proceeded on the Labour Court’s findings that these provisions had been violated.

It further treated reinstatement or re-engagement, rather than a nominal compensation award, as appropriate in the circumstances of this case; it cited no separate precedent.

The Court found no adequate basis for the Labour Court’s refusal to reinstate the workman beyond the fact that he had not been appointed through a proper channel.

It weighed that consideration against his 21 years of service, the Labour Court’s findings of statutory violations, and the close timing between his demand for appropriate wages and his termination.

His prompt resort to the Labour Court also supported relief.

The Court therefore agreed that ₹7,50,000 was appropriate compensation in lieu of back wages, but concluded that compensation alone was insufficient and that the workman should return to service.

To balance the parties’ positions, it ordered re-engagement rather than reinstatement, with wages at the minimum-wage rate.

The ₹7,50,000 compensation was to be paid within six weeks and, if re-engagement occurred by the specified date, was to be treated as covering back wages and arrears.

Both appeals were disposed of on those terms, and the pending civil application was also disposed of.