Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Section 25F in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 11A in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
12. The record of the case would show that the respondents have
not assailed the award passed by the CGIT, but the workmen
have filed the petitions assailing the award on the count that
since the learned CGIT has held that they have completed 240
days in a calendar year and the termination is bad-in-law, as
such they should have been reinstated with full back wages. It is
ordinary principle of labour adjudication that once termination is
held to be illegal grant of reinstatement with full back wages is to
be followed, but it is also equally well settled position of law that
when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied
mechanically in all cases as there may be a position where
services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:12457
Page 10 of 13
and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour
practice, etc then back wages may be followed. However, when
it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and
where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural
defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, it is well settled position of law that in such cases
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the
workman should be given monetary compensation which will
meet the ends of justice. The reasons for denying the relief of
reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when
the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of
retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily
required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even
after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to
terminate the services of that employee by paying him the
retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was
working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he
has no right to seek regularization in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. Thus when he cannot claim
regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily-
wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in
reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary
compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated
again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary
compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:12457
Page 11 of 13
and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of
reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any
purpose. In this case workmen were terminated in the year 2004
and the award was passed on 11.04.2019 after 15 years and
now about 20 years have already been lapsed thus no fruitful
purpose will be achieved in reinstating the workmen after such a
long period of 20 years. Considering this aspect of the matter
this Court can only consider grant of compensation with higher
quantum.
The State Of Uttarakhand vs Rajkumar on 3 October, 2023
13. Thus, in view of the above discussion this Court has to examine
whether the compensation awarded by the learned CGIT is
proportionate for the services rendered by them or not.
Admittedly, the workmen have completed services between 6
years to 10 years as detailed in forgoing paragraph of the order,
but inadequate compensation has been awarded by the learned
CGIT. The grant of compensation has come up for the
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rajkumar reported in (2019) 14 SCC
353 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 to 15
has held as under:-
1