Lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement is justified where illegal termination is affirmed but reinstatement is impracticable.

The Respondent, an employee of the Appellant since 2001, alleged illegal termination on 16.03.2013

The Appellant contended that the Respondent had abandoned his service by failing to report to an alternate site per a deployment order

The Labour Court, via Award dated 11.10.2018, found the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with full back wages

The learned Single Judge affirmed the findings of illegal termination but modified the relief to a lump sum compensation of ₹8,00,000 due to the Respondent's age (approx. 57 years) and the impracticality of reinstatement

The Appellant filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the Single Judge’s judgment dated 27.03.2026

1. Whether the findings of the learned Single Judge regarding the illegality of the Respondent's termination warrant interference under Letters Patent jurisdiction

2. Whether the modification of the relief from reinstatement to a lump sum compensation of ₹8,00,000 was justified under the facts and circumstances of the case

The Court applied the principles governing the limited scope of interference under writ jurisdiction regarding findings of fact in a Labour Court Award

It relied on the doctrine that relief of reinstatement is not automatic and can be substituted with lump sum compensation based on factors such as the nature of the industry, the length of litigation (efflux of time), and the age of the workman

The Court observed that the Appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the closure of the original work site or the validity of the deployment order, which the Respondent claimed was antedated

The Appellant produced no witness to support the deployment order and failed to cross-examine the Respondent on this point

Regarding the modification of relief, the Court reasoned that since the Respondent was nearing 57 years of age and had been out of service since 2013, the passage of time made reinstatement "impracticable"

The Court found that the Single Judge correctly balanced the illegality of termination with the practicalities of the employment relationship by awarding ₹8,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages

The Court upheld the order of the Single Judge directing the Appellant to pay ₹8,00,000 as lump sum compensation within six weeks, failing which it would attract 12% interest per annum

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs