Monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate for illegal termination of a daily-wage workman.

The appellant’s services were terminated by the respondent, which he challenged before the Labour Court.

In Case No. COS 75/A/ID Act/2017/Reference, the Labour Court issued an Award on 21/04/2022 holding the termination illegal but awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹70,000/- instead of reinstatement.

The appellant challenged this non-grant of reinstatement in W.P. No. 4401/2022. On 13/01/2026, the learned Single Judge affirmed the Labour Court's decision to deny reinstatement but enhanced the compensation to ₹2,50,000/-.

The appellant then filed this Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Achiniyam, 2005.

1. Whether a Writ Appeal is maintainable against an order passed in a writ petition arising out of an Award of the Labour Court.

2. Whether compensation in lieu of reinstatement is an appropriate relief when the termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal due to procedural defects.

The court applied the Full Bench decision in Shailendra Kumar v. Divisional Forest Officer, which held that orders arising from Labour Court Awards are composite orders under Articles 226 and 227, making a Writ Appeal maintainable.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (2014), which established that for daily-wage workers terminated via procedural defects (Section 25-F of the ID Act), reinstatement is not automatic and monetary compensation may suffice.

Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board and O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited (1986), which grant courts discretion to "sculpture the relief" and award compensation instead of reinstatement in the interest of justice.

The Court addressed the maintainability of the appeal first, over-ruling the office objection by citing the Shailendra Kumar precedent regarding composite jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the appellant was a daily-wager. Following the "shift in legal position" noted by the Supreme Court, the Bench reasoned that the traditional rule of automatic reinstatement with back wages for illegal termination primarily applies to regular/permanent employees.

For daily-wagers, especially where the termination occurred years ago or where the person worked for a short duration, the modern trend favors monetary compensation.

The Court found that the decision to award compensation was a "legally accepted phenomenon" and that the Single Judge had already balanced the equities by significantly enhancing the compensation amount from ₹70,000/- to ₹2,50,000/-.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 13/01/2026 passed in M.P. No. 4401/2022.