Rajasthan High Court
Hanuman Sharma S/O Sh. Ram Swaroop ... vs The Superintendent ... on 26 February, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:9776-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1105/2023
Hanuman Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of 479/20 Diggi Bazar, Gurjar Mohalla, Dev
Narayan Ka Mandir, Ajmer.
----Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent, Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer.
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
26/02/2024
1. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public
Health Division No.1, Panipath (Haryana), reported in
(2010) 5 SCC 497, Devendra Singh Vs. Municipal Council
Sanaur, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 584 and Bhuvnesh Kumar
Dwivedi Vs. Hindalco Industries Limited, reported in (2014)
11 SCC 85, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
once there is violation of the provisions contained under Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the order of termination
is rendered void ab initio and reinstatement is necessary
consequence and not the compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
2. Learned Single Judge relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's decision in the cases of BSNL Vs. Man Singh, reported in
[2024:RJ-JP:9776-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1105/2023]
(2012) 1 SCC 558 and Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, observed that where an
employee-workman had worked on daily wage basis and worked
merely for a short period and in case, termination had taken place
many years ago, reinstatement is not automatic and in lieu of the
reinstatement, compensation could be awarded.
3. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs.
Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court again observed as under:-
"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid
judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of
reinstatement with full back wages, when the
termination is found to be illegal is not applied
mechanically in all cases. While that may be a
position where services of a regular/permanent
workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide
and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour
practice etc. However, when it comes to the case
of termination of a daily wage worker and where
the termination is found illegal because of
procedural defect, namely in violation of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is
consistent in taking the view 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. Rationale for shifting in this direction is
obvious.
34. 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 (See: State
of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus
when he cannot claim regularization and he has no
right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no
[2024:RJ-JP:9776-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1105/2023]
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 and notice pay. In
such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement,
that too after a long gap, would not serve any
purpose."
4. Reliance on the decisions placed before this Court for the
proposition that in every case of violation of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, reinstatement must follow, compensation
in lieu of reinstatement being only exception, is misconceived in
law and facts both.
5. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge does
not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
RAJAT/15
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
