Background Facts

The appellant-workman was employed as a Beldar in the Irrigation Department of State of Punjab. He was drawing wages of Rs.630/- per month at the time of termination. His services were terminated on 01.12.1989. Aggrieved against the termination, he served a demand notice to the management.

The workman claimed that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As no notice and compensation was given to him at the time of termination in terms of Section 25-F of the Act, therefore, the termination was bad in law.

The appellant also claimed that his juniors were retained, which violated Section 25-G. Further, it was claimed that new appointments were made and no opportunity was given to him for re-employment, which violated Section 25-H.

The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court decided in favour of the workman. It was held that the appellant was entitled to reinstatement along with 50% back wages. The Labour Court found violations of Sections 25-F, 25-G and Section 25-H.

Aggrieved by the award of Labour Court, the Management filed a writ petition. The Single Judge granted a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service.

Aggrieved against the judgment of Single Judge, the workman filed the appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

It was argued by the workman that taking into consideration the length of service of the workman and nature of the employment, he was entitled for grant of enhanced compensation.

On the other hand, it was argued by the Management that taking into consideration the nature and mode of employment of the workman and other factors, the Single Judge has rightly granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that there is no straight jacket formula for determining the amount of compensation. Various factors like nature and mode of appointment/employment, wages received by the workman at the time of termination, length of service etc. are few factors which are relevant for the purpose of determination of amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in a case of workman whose services have been terminated on account of violation of provisions of the 1947 Act.

It was further observed that workman had worked for almost 04 years and was getting a wages of Rs.630/- per month at the time of termination of his service.

The judgment in Ranbir Singh Vs. Executive Eng. P.W.D. was relied upon wherein the Supreme Court had granted compensation of Rs.3.25 lakhs to the workman who had worked for 08 years in lieu of reinstatement in service.

It was further held that the termination in violation of Section 25F is illegal. However, reinstatement is not automatic in the case of a daily-wage worker when the illegality is only procedural. It was further held that monetary compensation is generally appropriate in such circumstances. However, reinstatement may be justified where unfair labour practice is proved.

It was held by the Division Bench that the compensation given by the Single Judge of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was less. The workman was held entitled for grant of enhanced compensation of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- for each year instead of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the Single Judge in lieu of reinstatement in service.

The respondents were directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman within a period of 02 months.

With the aforesaid observations, the judgment passed by the Single Judge was modified to the above extent. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the workman was disposed of by the Division Bench.

Counsel for the Appellant : R.S. Manhas, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent : Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab