Subsequent regularization justified restoring reinstatement after illegal termination, without awarding back wages.

The appellant was engaged as a daily-wage Chowkidar under the respondent department from 01.02.1989 until his services were discontinued on 30.06.1996.

The Labour Court, Bilaspur, held that the discontinuance violated the statutory requirements under Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed reinstatement without back wages by award dated 31.03.2010.

In the State’s writ petition, the learned Single Judge affirmed the finding that the termination was illegal but substituted reinstatement with compensation of Rs.25,000 for each completed year of service, considering the appellant’s daily-wage status, absence of proof of appointment against a sanctioned post, and the long passage of time.

During the pendency of the intra-Court appeal, the appellant’s services were regularized by the respondent authorities on 12.11.2021, and the State conceded that he was continuing in service pursuant to such regularization.

Whether, in view of the subsequent regularization of the appellant’s services, the relief of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court ought to be restored instead of monetary compensation.

Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the appellant’s discontinuance was illegal and contrary to Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act warranted interference.

Whether restoration of reinstatement entitled the appellant to back wages or required any further direction for physical reinstatement.

The Court applied the provisions of Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act governing statutory conditions for termination or retrenchment, holding that non-compliance renders the discontinuance illegal.

It applied the principle that the appropriateness of reinstatement or monetary compensation depends on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of employment, existence of a sanctioned post, and the lapse of time.

The Court further recognized that an appellate court may take material subsequent events into account when moulding relief, particularly where those events directly affect the basis on which the original relief was granted.

Reinstatement does not automatically carry an award of back wages, especially where such relief was expressly declined by the Labour Court.

The Labour Court had recorded a categorical finding that the appellant’s discontinuance was contrary to Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act, and that finding was expressly preserved by the learned Single Judge.

Although compensation had initially been considered appropriate because the appellant was a daily-wage worker and had remained out of service for a substantial period, the factual basis for denying reinstatement materially changed when the respondent itself regularized his services in 2021.

Regularization demonstrated that the appellant had been brought into the regular establishment, substantially removing the concern that reinstatement would merely continue an irregular daily-wage engagement.

Since the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement without back wages, restoration of that relief would not impose any additional liability for the intervening period or confer an undue monetary benefit.

The Court therefore treated the subsequent regularization as a material development justifying modification of the Single Judge’s order.

The order dated 04.12.2015 of the learned Single Judge was modified, and the Labour Court’s award dated 31.03.2010 directing reinstatement without back wages was upheld.

No separate direction for physical reinstatement was issued because the appellant had already been regularized and was continuing in service pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2021.

His consequential service benefits were directed to be governed by the Labour Court’s award, the regularization order, and the applicable service rules.

The Court clarified that no back wages were granted for any period, as the Labour Court had expressly declined that relief.

No order as to costs was made.