Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(para 9) 6.3 In subsequent decision in Rajasthan Development Corpn. v. Gitam Singh [(2013) 5 SCC 136], the above position was highlighted with elaboration, and it was held, "From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of this Court that there could be circumstance(s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Therefore, the normal rule that the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. Insofar as wrongful termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this Court has laid down that consequential relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Where the length of engagement as daily wager has not been long, award of reinstatement should not follow and rather compensation should be directed to be paid. A distinction has been drawn between a daily wager and an employee holding the regular post for the purposes of consequential relief."

(Para 22) 6.4 In Gitam Sing (supra), the Supreme Court distinguished the decisions in Hajinder Singh (supra) and in Devinder Singh (supra), which were relied on by the learned advocate for the respondent workman appearing here. It was on the ground that in case of daily-wager worked for short period, the law was that award of compensation and not the reinstatement could be said to be proper relief. The Supreme Court stated as under, "In our view, Harjinder Singh[2010 (3) SCC 192] and Devinder Singh [2011 (6) SCC 584] do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute." (para 27) 6.5 The contention of learned advocate for the petitioner Municipality to assail reinstatement award, that the workman was a daily-wager not appointed after regular procedure of recruitment, that his engagement was in the nature of backdoor entry and further that there was no sanctioned post available, claimed merit and could not be discarded. In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi [(2007)9 SCC 353], the Supreme Court inter alia stated that on the question of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement, one of the relevant factor was whether appointment in question was made in terms of statutory rules. Again decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Ashok Kumar [(2008)4 SCC 261] deserves a reference.

7.3 Similarly in Gitam Singh (supra), the Supreme Court stated that in respect of wrongful termination of the workman who had worked for a short period, the reinstatement could not be said to be a proper relief, rather proper relief, but award of compensation would be appropriate. In that case, the workman had worked from 01st March, 1991 to 30th October, 1991. He was engaged as technician (mistri) and worked for short period from 01st March, 1991 to 31st October, 1991. The Court in Gitam Singh (supra) held as under: