Lump-sum compensation enhanced for illegal termination where reinstatement is impossible due to the workman's death.

The deceased husband of the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Driver on June 4, 1998, and was orally terminated on June 1, 1999

In the first round of litigation (Reference (L.C.D.) No. 168/2008), the Labour Court awarded reinstatement with full back-wages

However, the respondent successfully filed a restoration application under Section 26(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, leading to a fresh adjudication

During the pendency of the remanded proceedings, the employee died on May 10, 2017

The Labour Court, Godhra, in its award dated July 25, 2023, found the termination illegal but granted a meager lump sum compensation of ₹20,000 in lieu of reinstatement given the employee's demise

The petitioner (legal heir) challenged this amount as insufficient

1. Whether the lump sum compensation of ₹20,000 awarded by the Labour Court was adequate considering the illegal termination and the long duration of litigation

2. Whether the compensation should be enhanced in light of judicial precedents concerning deceased workmen

The court primarily applied Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates specific procedures for the valid retrenchment of a workman who has completed one year (240 days) of continuous service

It further relied on the principles for quantifying lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement as established by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Bhikhabhai Fatabhai Solanki v. Executive Engineer, Narmada Project Canal System & Anr. (LPA No. 908 of 2023), which sets out criteria for employees who expire pending proceedings

The Court noted that the deceased workman had completed 240 days of service and that his termination was "wrong and illegal" due to non-compliance with Section 25F

While the Labour Court correctly determined that reinstatement was impossible due to the workman’s death in 2017, the High Court found the award of ₹20,000 to be disproportionately low

The Court emphasized that the workman had been litigating for his rights since 1999—a period of approximately 25 years

Applying the criteria from the Bhikhabhai Fatabhai Solanki precedent, the Court reasoned that the duration of the legal struggle and the nature of the breach necessitated an enhancement of compensation to meet the ends of justice

The High Court modified the award of the Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No. 77/2013, directing the respondents to pay the petitioner ₹2,00,000 (Two Lakhs) instead of ₹20,000 within four weeks from the receipt of the order

Rule was made absolute to that extent