### Reinstatement substituted with monetary compensation for illegal retrenchment following long delay and lack of regular appointment.

The Respondent was engaged as a temporary employee (Peon/Orderly) by the Petitioner-Bank in two spells: first from 1988–1992 (where a 1997 reference was declined due to lack of 240 days of service) and second from 1996–2003

On 11.05.2003, his services were terminated without notice or compensation

The Respondent raised an industrial dispute in 2007

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), via an award dated 09.06.2014, held the termination void for violating Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement with regularization

The Petitioner challenged this award under Article 226/227, arguing the Respondent failed to prove 240 days of service in the year preceding termination and that the CGIT exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering regularization

1. Whether the reference was vitiated by gross and unexplained delay

2. Whether the Respondent had completed 240 days of continuous service in the twelve months preceding termination to attract Section 25F

3. Whether the CGIT was justified in directing reinstatement and regularization of service

The court applied Section 25B and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandate notice and compensation for workmen in "continuous service" (240 days in the preceding 12 months)

It relied on *Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing* regarding the non-applicability of the Limitation Act to industrial disputes

On the burden of proof, it applied *H.D. Singh v. RBI* and *R.M. Yellatti v. Asst. Executive Engineer*, holding that once a workman affirms service, the burden shifts to the employer to produce muster rolls

Regarding relief, it applied *B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal* and *Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing*, which establish that compensation may be granted in lieu of reinstatement for daily wagers

Finally, it applied *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi* and *Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd.*, holding that Tribunals cannot travel beyond the scope of reference to order regularization

The Court first dismissed the delay objection, noting that the Respondent had been pursuing other judicial remedies and that mere delay does not invalidate a reference unless prejudice is proved

On merits, the Court upheld the CGIT’s finding of illegal retrenchment.

It noted that while the 240-day calculation must be for the 12 months preceding termination, the Bank failed to produce muster rolls despite directions, justifying an adverse inference

The Court found that documentary evidence, including correspondence by the Branch Manager and payment of arrears under a bipartite settlement, established an employer-employee relationship exceeding 240 days

However, the Court found the CGIT’s direction for regularization legally unsustainable because it was not part of the terms of reference

It violated the principles of *Uma Devi* as the Respondent was not recruited through a formal selection process

Furthermore, given the 23-year lapse since termination and the Respondent's proximity to superannuation, the Court found reinstatement inequitable

It upheld the finding of illegal termination but set aside the directions for reinstatement and regularization

Using the formula from *Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd.*, the Court ordered the Petitioner to pay a consolidated lump-sum compensation of ₹11,00,000/- (Eleven Lakhs) in lieu of reinstatement, to be paid within three months, with a set-off for any payments made under Section 17B of the Act

Failure to pay within the deadline would attract 9% interest per annum