Mandatory Reinstatement and Continuity of Service for Illegal Termination Despite Superannuation During Reference Pendency

The petitioner joined the respondent’s Irrigation Department as a Rojamdar (daily wage) labourer on August 5, 1981, and worked continuously until June 2000, when his services were orally terminated

The Labour Court found the termination was in violation of statutory procedures but, noting that the petitioner was near retirement age (attaining superannuation in November 2005) and citing a delay in filing the reference, it awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of reinstatement

The petitioner challenged this award, seeking reinstatement with continuity of service to secure retirement benefits

1. Whether the Labour Court erred in awarding lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement with continuity of service despite finding the termination illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act

2. Whether a workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits if he attains the age of superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings

Section 25B(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to define "continuous service" and Section 25F, which mandates the procedure for retrenching workmen, including notice and compensation

The court followed the established legal principle that once a long-term service (19 years) is proved and the termination is held illegal due to non-compliance with Section 25F, the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service is the standard remedy, even if the employee has since reached the age of retirement

The High Court observed that the Labour Court correctly found the petitioner had completed over 19 years of continuous service

The court noted that the respondents failed to produce complete attendance records, and their witness lacked knowledge of the relevant period, whereas the petitioner’s oral testimony remained unshaken

The High Court reasoned that denying reinstatement solely because the petitioner reached superannuation during the litigation caused "grave injustice" and "grave prejudice," as it effectively nullified the benefits of his 19 years of service

The Court held that when a workman has put in a long period of service and the termination is found to be void ab initio for lack of statutory compliance, continuity of service must be granted to safeguard terminal benefits, regardless of whether actual physical reinstatement is possible post-superannuation

The respondents were directed to calculate the retirement benefits based on the modified award within 12 weeks, adjusting any lump sum compensation already paid. The award of Rs. 1,50,000/- was set aside in favour of the aforementioned relief