Delhi High Court Rejects MCD's Appeal Against ₹1 Lakh Compensation To Safai Karmchari For Illegal Termination, But Denies Reinstatement
The Delhi High Court has dismissed cross-petitions filed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) and a Safai Karamchari and thus, upheld an Industrial Tribunal award granting ₹1 lakh retrenchment compensation for illegal termination. The HC, however, declined the workman's plea for reinstatement with back wages.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri noted that the termination of the Safai Karamchari was illegal for non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Further, it said the Tribunal had consciously limited the relief to monetary compensation instead of reinstatement as it always remains open to the management to terminate the services of a daily wage worker, even after he is reinstated.
The workman had been appointed on compassionate grounds in 2005 and remained in service until July 2008, after which he remained absent for nearly three years.
His services were terminated in January 2012 without issuance of any notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing.
The High Court noted that the MCD itself conceded that no notice under Section 25F was served prior to termination, rendering the action illegal.
Rejecting MCD's contention that prolonged unauthorised absence justified termination without compliance of statutory safeguards, the Court held that even if the termination was treated as punitive, it was vitiated by the absence of any departmental inquiry.
On the question of relief, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in BSNL v. Bhurumal, to reiterate that reinstatement is not an automatic consequence of illegal termination, particularly in cases involving daily wage or low-category workers where the illegality stems from procedural lapses. The Bench observed that in such cases, awarding lump-sum compensation often meets the ends of justice.
The Court also took into account the long lapse of time, the nature of employment, and the fact that even after reinstatement the employer could lawfully terminate the services by following due process. In these circumstances, it held that directing reinstatement would serve no meaningful purpose.
Appearance: Ms. Namrata Mukim, Standing Counsel MCD and Ms. Niharika Singh for MCD; Mr. Jawahar Raja, Mr. Siddharth Sapra and Ms. Meghna De, Advocates for Respondents
Case title: North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Shri Darshan Singh
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5116/2019