Illegal termination warrants reinstatement with continuity of service and lump sum compensation in lieu of back wages.

The petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wage Watchman (Rojamdar Chokidar) with the respondent Forest Department starting 19.07.2012

His services were terminated on 16.10.2014 without following due legal procedure

After a delay of three years, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in 2017

On 01.02.2019, the Labour Court, Junagadh, held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement but specifically denied back wages and continuity of service

Although the award was passed in 2019, the petitioner was only reinstated in 2023 after filing a recovery application

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking to quash the denial of back wages and continuity of service

1. Whether a workman is entitled to continuity of service and back wages as a matter of course once the termination is declared illegal

2. Whether the court should award lump sum compensation in lieu of back wages in instances involving short service periods and delays in raising a dispute

Hindustan Tin Works v. Employees (1979), which posits that while reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule for illegal termination, the court retains judicial discretion to depart from this rule based on relevant circumstances

Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013), which mandates that adjudicating authorities consider the length of service, financial condition of the employer, and the workman's pleadings regarding gainful employment when determining back wages

The court observed that the Labour Court, having found the termination to be illegal, failed to provide adequate reasons for denying continuity of service

It reasoned that continuity should typically be granted alongside reinstatement to rectify the illegal act

Regarding back wages, the court noted two critical factors: the petitioner’s relatively short tenure (approximately two years) and the three-year delay in initiating the reference proceedings

While the petitioner claimed he was not gainfully employed, the court found that full back wages were not justified given the procedural delay

Consequently, the court determined that a lump sum compensation would serve the interest of justice better than a traditional back-wages award, effectively penalizing the illegal termination while accounting for the petitioner's delay

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to "continuity of service"

In lieu of back wages, the court ordered the respondents to pay a lump sum compensation of ₹1,00,000 (One Lac) as a full and final settlement within eight weeks from the receipt of the order