Principal vs Brijesh Barman

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner challenged an award dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Sagar in Case No. 102/2016/I.D.R., which directed reinstatement of the workman. The petitioner contended that since the workman had worked only from 24.02.2014 to 09.10.2015, compensation in lieu of reinstatement would have been the appropriate relief, even if the finding of 240 days' work in a calendar year was accepted.

The High Court, relying on a catena of Supreme Court decisions including Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177, Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar v. Anoop Ganpatrao Bobde (2017) 11 SCC 244, and Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India (2014) 7 SCC 190, examined the settled legal position that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic in cases involving daily-wage workers whose termination is found illegal solely on account of procedural violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Court affirmed the consistent judicial trend that where a daily-wage workman has worked for a limited period of about 240 days or 2 to 3 years and the termination occurred many years ago, monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement better serves the ends of justice, as reinstatement cannot be said to be an automatic consequence of illegal termination in such circumstances.

Catchwords: Article 227 Constitution of India · Industrial Disputes Act Section 25-F · daily-wage worker · illegal termination · reinstatement · compensation in lieu of reinstatement · Labour Court award · 240 days work · procedural violation · back wages