Long delay and advanced age justify compensation instead of reinstatement despite illegal termination.

The respondent-workman claimed that he had been employed as a Head Security Guard from 20 June 2007, was not permitted to resume duty after medical leave in May 2012, was later reinstated, and was again terminated on 22 March 2013.

The petitioner-management disputed this account, relying on documents including a resignation letter and full-and-final settlement receipt.

The Labour Court found the termination illegal and awarded reinstatement, full back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits.

The management challenged that Award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

At the High Court hearing, the respondent was stated to be about 69 years old and to have pursued the litigation for a considerable period without receiving compensation.

1. Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the respondent’s employment had been illegally terminated, rather than voluntarily severed, warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether, in light of the passage of time and the respondent’s age, the relief of reinstatement and related benefits should be replaced with monetary compensation.

In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not ordinarily sit as an appellate court over a Labour Court’s factual findings, reappreciate evidence, or substitute its own view; interference may be warranted where perversity or an error of law is shown.

The Court relied on Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, for this supervisory-review principle.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the Labour Court’s conclusion: the management had not established the alleged resignation or abandonment, and no perversity or error of law had been demonstrated.

It therefore upheld the finding that the termination was illegal.

However, more than thirteen years had passed since the termination, nearly eight years since the Award, and the respondent was about 69.

In those circumstances, reinstatement was not considered efficacious, and the Court moulded the relief as monetary compensation.

The Rs. 3,00,000 deposited with the Registry, with any accrued interest, was to be released to the respondent; the remaining Rs. 3,00,000 was payable within four weeks, failing which it would carry interest at 9% per annum from the expiry of that period until realization.

The interim order was vacated, and the petition was disposed of.

The respondent’s application for directions was also disposed of as infructuous.