Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/618/2021 on 3 July, 2023
.IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 618 OF 2021
03RD JULY, 2023
BETWEEN:
Arjun Singh .....Petitioner.
And
Registrar, HNB Garhwal University ....Respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned
counsel assisted by Ms. Irum
Zeba, learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner-workman has filed this petition to
assail the Award dated 04.03.2021, passed by the Presiding
Officer, C.G.I.T-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi in Industrial
Dispute Case No.98/2011.
2. By the impugned Award, while holding that the
petitioner's services were terminated in breach of Section 25-
F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner has been
awarded compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs, instead of
reinstatement.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner
should have been directed to be reinstated in service with full
back wages rather being awarded compensation of Rs.10.00
Lakhs. The petitioner had rendered service between
31.10.1996 to 11.10.2001 when his services were
terminated. No doubt, the termination of the petitioner has
been found to be illegal. However, after her termination, she
has remained out of service with the respondent-University
till the passing of the impugned Award on 04.03.2021, i.e. for
a period of twenty years.
4. Considering the fact that the petitioner had
rendered about five years of service, and thereafter,
remained out of service for 20 years, in our view, the Tribunal
was justified in invoking the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Food
Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190, wherein the
Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"Relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not
automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact
situation even though the termination of an employee is in
contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation
instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of
justice. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of
section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of
reinstatement should not, however automatically be passed.
The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case
where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a
year preceding the date of termination, particularly daily
wager has not been found to be proper by the Supreme Court
and instead compensation has been awarded. The Supreme
Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not
hold a post of a permanent employee. 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 under Section 25-F of the Industrial
Dispute Act, even after reinstatement it is always open to the
management to terminate the services of that employee by
paying him the retrenchment compensation".
5. It is well-settled that reinstatement in service with
or without back wages is not automatic, and it would depend
on the facts and circumstances of each case whether such a
relief should be granted to the workman whose services are
found to be illegally terminated in breach of Section 25-F, or
any other provision of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been
able to point out any illegality requiring us to intervene in the
matter, and interfere with the impugned Award in judicial
review.
7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 03rd July, 2023
NISHANT
