Illegal termination does not mandate reinstatement; prolonged lapse and brief service justify lump-sum compensation.

The respondent-workman claimed that he had worked as an Account/Clerk with the petitioner-management from 17 December 2012 at a last-drawn salary of ₹18,000 per month.

He alleged that after proceeding to his native village on 14 October 2013, and informing the management by telephone on 7 November 2013, he returned on 13 November 2013 but was refused rejoining and treated as terminated.

He further alleged non-payment of wages from 1 October to 13 November 2013 and issued a demand notice on 16 November 2013, which remained unanswered.

The management appeared before the Labour Court and filed a written statement but subsequently failed to appear after framing of issues.

It was proceeded ex parte, and the Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages and consequential benefits.

The management challenged the award dated 16 May 2017, the ex parte order dated 9 December 2016, and the order dated 26 April 2019 dismissing its application concerning the ex parte proceedings.

During the writ proceedings, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21 January 2026 but was restored after delay in filing and re-filing was condoned; the respondent did not oppose restoration.

Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the workman’s termination was illegal was liable to be interfered with under the limited writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Whether the management’s assertion that it had issued a notice dated 30 October 2013 justified the workman’s termination, despite the management’s failure to lead evidence or prove dispatch of the notice.

Whether reinstatement with 50% back wages was the appropriate relief, or whether monetary compensation should be awarded in lieu of reinstatement considering the passage of time and the workman’s short period of employment.

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226/227, holding that a writ court does not sit as an appellate court and may interfere where the decision is without jurisdiction, perverse, or contrary to natural justice, relying on Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers’ Union, and Ritz Theatre Private Limited v. Ramesh Chandra.

It relied on Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as interpreted in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, for the principle that the statutory conditions precedent to retrenchment are mandatory.

On relief, the Court applied B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal, under which reinstatement is not automatic for an illegally terminated worker, particularly where substantial time has elapsed, and monetary compensation may be appropriate absent unfair labour practice or exceptional circumstances.

The Court also considered its decision in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Sh. Darshan Singh.

The Court found no basis to disturb the Labour Court’s finding of illegal termination.

Although the management had been served and had filed a written statement, it failed to appear and lead evidence after issues were framed.

Its claim that a notice dated 30 October 2013 had been issued was treated as a bald and vague assertion because no proof of posting or dispatch was produced.

Applying the mandatory nature of the statutory retrenchment safeguards under Section 25-F, the Court upheld the conclusion that the termination could not be sustained.

However, the Court distinguished the finding of illegality from the question of remedy.

Since the alleged termination occurred in 2013, considerable time had passed, and the workman had been employed for only approximately ten months, the Court held that reinstatement was not warranted and that lump-sum compensation would better serve the ends of justice.

Instead of reinstatement with 50% back wages, the respondent was directed to receive ₹2,50,000 deposited with the Registrar General of the Court, together with accrued interest, as lump-sum compensation.

The writ petition was disposed of on those terms.

The restoration application was allowed, and the delays of 56 days in filing and 100 days in re-filing were condoned.

The application seeking release of the deposited amount was disposed of as infructuous in view of the judgment.