Lump-sum compensation is awardable in lieu of reinstatement where part-time employment is established for a significant duration.

The appellant (workman) approached the Labour Court alleging unlawful termination in 2012 after working for the respondent-Corporation since 1998

The Labour Court rejected the reference on the grounds that the workman failed to establish his case, a decision subsequently upheld by a Single Judge in a writ petition

The appellant challenged these orders via the present Letters Patent Appeal, producing documents obtained through RTI—including a certificate from the respondent—which confirmed he had been engaged and paid wages as a part-time employee from 1998 to 2004

The respondent contended that as a part-time worker whose services ended over 20 years ago, he was entitled to neither reinstatement nor regularization

1. Whether a workman engaged on a part-time basis for a significant duration (six years) is entitled to any relief/compensation upon termination, even if reinstatement or regularization is not feasible due to the nature of employment and lapse of time.

The court applied the principle of equitable relief in industrial disputes, where a lump-sum compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement or regularization

It emphasized the duty of management to treat workers in a "fair manner" when work is not merely casual, as evidenced by continuous engagement over several years

The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to provide a "quietus" to long-standing litigation involving a workman from a marginalized economic background (sweeper)

The court observed that while the Labour Court did not have the benefit of the RTI documents, those records clearly established that the appellant served the Corporation for six years (1998–2004)

Although the management argued the employment was part-time, the court reasoned that six years of continuous service indicates the work was not of a "casual" nature

Given the significant passage of time (retrenchment occurred approximately 22 years prior) and the nature of the role as a part-time sweeper, the court determined that reinstatement was impractical

However, it concluded that the appellant's long-standing service necessitated a fair financial settlement rather than a total dismissal of his claims

The court ordered the respondent-Corporation to pay a lump-sum compensation of ₹75,000/- to the appellant

The Writ Appeal was disposed of accordingly