Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele

HELD: 1.1 It is true that as such all the three courts below (except the Industrial Court) held the termination of the respondent-workman in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with back wages. However, it is required to be noted that even as per the appointment order produced by the respondent herself, her appointment was on contractual basis at a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month. Though, it is a case on behalf of the appellant that her appointment was a fixed term appointment, however, considering the appointment order, the appointment was till further orders. It also cannot be disputed that she worked approximately for four years as a sweeper. As such there were no specific averments/allegations in the complaint on any unfair labour practice. Even there was no specific finding recorded by the Labour Court that there was any unfair labour practice adopted by the MSRTC. The only finding recorded by the Labour Court was that the termination was in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the appointment was purely on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs.500/- per month, the order of reinstatement with back wages was not warranted and instead if the lumpsum compensation of Rs. Three lakhs only is awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, it would meet the ends of justice.In view thereof, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court ordering reinstatement with back wages is hereby modified and the appellant is directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the respondent, within the stipulated period. [Paras 6-8][403-D-G; 404-A-D]