Reinstatement with back wages is not automatic for daily wagers; lump-sum compensation is the appropriate relief after long delays.

The Appellants were recruited as ‘Gardeners’ by the Respondent (Airports Authority of India) in 1993 and worked until their termination on December 18, 1996

They challenged their termination, leading to a reference (ID No. 198/1999) before the CGIT, which passed an award on May 16, 2007, directing reinstatement with 25% back wages

During the pendency of the writ, the Appellants received approximately ₹20 lakhs each as subsistence allowance under Section 17B of the ID Act

By judgment dated May 08, 2024, the Single Judge upheld the finding of illegal termination but modified the relief of reinstatement to a lump-sum compensation of ₹1.5 lakhs each due to the long passage of time (28 years) and the nature of their daily-wage employment

1. Whether the Single Judge was justified in substituting the relief of reinstatement and back wages with lump-sum compensation in a case of illegal termination

2. Whether the payments received by workmen under Section 17B of the ID Act can be considered a ground for denying reinstatement

reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of illegal retrenchment, especially for daily wagers with short tenures where termination involves procedural defects under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya regarding the general rule of reinstatement

Dena Bank v. Kiritkumar T. Patel, which characterizes Section 17B payments as non-recoverable subsistence allowance intended to relieve hardship during litigation

the shift in industrial jurisprudence favors compensation over reinstatement for daily wagers who served briefly decades ago

the Appellants worked for only three years (1993–1996), and nearly 30 years have elapsed since their termination

Applying Bhurumal, the Court reasoned that since the Appellants were daily-wage workers with no inherent right to regularization, reinstatement after 30 years would serve no practical purpose

Regarding Section 17B, the Court held that while such payments are interim relief, they must be factored into the overall "ameliorative impact" when determined final compensation

the Bench found the Single Judge's assessment of ₹1.5 lakhs as compensation to be subjective and lacking a cogent parameter

the compensation was enhanced from ₹1,50,000/- to ₹3,00,000/- per appellant, in addition to the Section 17B benefits already received