Lump Sum Compensation instead of Reinstatement for Casual Workers in Cases of Procedural Termination Defects

The Respondent-workman was engaged by the Petitioner-Bank from 1998 to June 2011 for book-binding and daftry work

His services were terminated in 2011 without notice or compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The workman filed a claim before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which passed an award on 04.12.2018 directing reinstatement with 50% back wages

The Bank challenged this award, contending the workman was a casual job-worker and failed to prove 240 days of continuous service

During the pendency of the writ, the workman received Rs. 10,66,000 under Section 17B of the Act

1. Whether the workman qualified as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and if his termination was in violation of Section 25F

2. Whether the findings of the CGIT regarding the completion of 240 days of service were perverse or legally unsustainable

3. Whether reinstatement with back wages is the appropriate relief for a casual worker after a prolonged litigation period

Section 2(s) and Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, noting that the Act does not distinguish between permanent, temporary, or casual employees

Delhi Cantonment Board v. CGIT & Ors. to establish that any person performing manual or clerical work for reward is a workman

Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal established that reinstatement is not automatic for daily wagers; instead, monetary compensation may be granted in cases of procedural defects (violation of S. 25F) to meet the ends of justice

The Court found no perversity in the CGIT's finding that the respondent was a "workman." It noted the Bank's witness (MW-1) admitted the workman was engaged from 1998 to 2011 and that the Bank failed to maintain attendance records for casual workers

The workman successfully shifted the burden of proof by producing bank statements, deposit slips, and photographs showing work within bank premises

The Court reasoned that since the termination was illegal due to a procedural defect (non-compliance with Section 25F) rather than victimization, and considering the long gap in service, a lump-sum compensation was more appropriate than reinstatement

The Court ordered: (i) the release of amounts already deposited by the Bank with the Registrar General to the workman; (ii) payment of any remaining balance from the original award (excluding reinstatement/back wages); and (iii) an additional lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to be paid within 4 weeks