Reinstatement and back wages are not automatic for illegally terminated daily-wage workers.

The petitioner worked as a Gardner with the respondent Forest Department from 1 May 2010. His services were terminated with effect from 9 December 2019, allegedly without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner raised a reference before the Labour Court after an approximately two-year delay. The Labour Court, Godhra, dismissed Reference (LCG) No. 119 of 2021 by judgment dated 2 September 2025 and did not grant compensation, back wages, or continuity of service.

The petitioner challenged that decision before the High Court and sought full back wages and continuity in service.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner was a daily-wage worker, while conceding that the Division Bench had granted lump-sum compensation in similar circumstances.

Whether the Labour Court’s refusal to grant relief to the petitioner, whose services were allegedly terminated in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, warranted interference by the High Court.

Whether, instead of reinstatement, continuity in service, and full back wages, the petitioner was entitled to lump-sum compensation having regard to his status as a daily-wage worker, length of service, and delay in raising the reference.

Whether the petitioner’s compensation should be calculated by deducting the period of delay in raising the reference from his total period of service.

The Court applied the principles governing retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while recognising that breach of that provision does not automatically require reinstatement or payment of full back wages.

Relying on Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal, (2010) 6 SCC 773, and Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327, the Court held that monetary compensation may be appropriate in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

Rajasthan Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136, established that relief for wrongful termination of a daily-rated worker depends on factors including the manner of appointment, nature and length of employment.

Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353, and BSNL v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177, similarly support compensation instead of reinstatement in appropriate cases.

The Division Bench’s order dated 18 April 2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied matters prescribed compensation of Rs.3 lakh for 5–10 years, Rs.5 lakh for 10–15 years, and Rs.7.5 lakh for 15–20 years of service, after accounting for delay in raising the reference.

The Court treated the petitioner as a daily-wage worker rather than a regular employee and considered that reinstatement, continuity, and full back wages were not automatic remedies even assuming a violation of Section 25F.

His total service from 1 May 2010 to 9 December 2019 was calculated as 9 years and 11 months. Applying the Division Bench’s approach, the Court deducted approximately two years attributable to the delay in raising the reference, leaving 7 years and 11 months for purposes of compensation.

That period fell within the 5–10-year bracket under the prescribed compensation table, entitling the petitioner to Rs.3 lakh.

The Court accordingly followed the existing Division Bench precedent without examining the merits of the termination in detail, particularly since the respondents had not raised serious objection to the grant of compensation.

The Court declined to grant full back wages and continuity in service but directed Respondent No. 1 to pay the petitioner lump-sum compensation of Rs.3 lakh within four weeks from receipt of the order.

In default, the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum.