Section 25F violation may warrant enhanced compensation instead of reinstatement for long-serving part-time workers.

The petitioner had been employed by the respondent organisation as a part-time sweeper since 1987.

The Labour Court, in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/93/2005, held that the petitioner was entitled to protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that his termination without notice and retrenchment compensation was unlawful.

Instead of reinstatement, the Labour Court awarded compensation of ₹1,50,000 by its award dated 13 October 2015.

In the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought enhancement of compensation, contending that the amount was inadequate considering his service of more than 15 years.

He also filed I.A. No. 18209/2026 seeking impleadment of a proposed respondent who had allegedly been appointed in his place; the application was opposed on the ground that the writ petition concerned only the correctness of the Labour Court’s award.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Labour Court for termination in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Whether a person allegedly appointed in place of the petitioner could be added as a party in a petition under Article 227 challenging the Labour Court’s award.

The Court applied Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under which retrenchment without the prescribed notice and compensation is invalid.

It relied on Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136, for the principle that reinstatement is not an automatic remedy for every wrongful termination, particularly in the case of daily-rated or temporary workers; the appropriate relief depends on factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature and length of service, ground of termination, and delay in raising the dispute.

The Court also referred to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177, where ₹3,00,000 was awarded for approximately two years’ service.

The Court also referred to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558, where ₹2,00,000 was awarded for service exceeding 240 days.

The Court also referred to Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh, where ₹50,000 was awarded for eight months’ service.

No fixed formula governs the computation of compensation; the quantum must be determined on the facts of each case.

A petition under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and is confined to examining the correctness of the impugned Labour Court award; it cannot be converted into a proceeding under Article 226 seeking a mandamus concerning another person’s appointment.

The Labour Court correctly found that the petitioner’s termination violated Section 25-F, but, considering his status as a part-time sweeper, granted compensation rather than reinstatement.

Applying the Supreme Court’s approach that compensation is often more appropriate than reinstatement for non-regular or daily-rated workers, the High Court declined to disturb the nature of the relief.

However, it considered the awarded amount of ₹1,50,000 inadequate in view of the petitioner’s employment for more than 15 years and the comparative compensation awarded in the cited Supreme Court decisions.

The Court therefore enhanced the compensation to ₹4,00,000.

Separately, the proposed impleadment was rejected because the writ petition was limited to scrutiny of the Labour Court’s award, and no relief challenging the appointment of another person could be granted in the Article 227 proceedings.

The writ petition was partly allowed to the extent that the Labour Court’s award dated 13 October 2015 was modified, and the compensation payable to the petitioner was enhanced from ₹1,50,000 to ₹4,00,000.

The amount was directed to be paid within one month of production of the certified copy of the order; failing payment within that period, it would carry applicable bank interest until actual payment.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.