ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. & ANR.versusGITAM SINGH

                     [2013) 1 S.C.R. 679


   ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. & ANR.                   A
                               v.
                        GITAM SINGH
               (Civil Appeal No. 8415 of 2009)

                     JANUARY 31, 2013.
                                                                 B
          [R.M. LODHA AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                 MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

     Labour Laws:
                                                                c
       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - 25-F - Termination of
 workman - Who worked only for eight months as a daily wager
 - Courts below holding the termination to be in contravention
 of s. 25-F and directing reinstatement with continuity of service
 with 25% back wages- On appeal, held: In a case of wrongful · 0
 termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period,
 the award of reinstatement is not proper - Award of
 compensation would be in consonance with the demand of
justice - Compensation of Rs. 50, 0001- awarded.
     The question for consideration in the present appeal       E
filed by the management was where a workman had
worked only for eight months as a daily wager and his
termination has been held to be in contravention of s. 25-
F of Industrial disputes Act, 1947, whether the direction
to the employer for reinstatement with continuity of            F
service and 25% back wages was legally sustainable. .
    Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1. In a case of wrongful termination ·of a daily
wager, who had worked for a short period, the award of G
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
                            679                                 H
    680   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 1 S.C.R.

A 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 29]
B [695-E-G]

       2. In the instant case, the workman was engaged as
  daily wager and he worlced hardly for eight months. The
  labour court failed to exercise its judicial discretion
  appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the
C labour court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single
  Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court
  also erred in not considering the above aspect at all. The
  award directing reinstatement of the respondent with
  continuity of service and 25% back wages in the facts
D and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and
  has to be set aside. Compensation of Rs. 50,0001- by the
  appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends of
  justice. [Para 31] [696-F-G; 697-A]

E      Assam Oil Company Limited, New Delhi v. Its Workmen
  AIR• 1960 SC 1264: 1960 SCR 457; Mis. Hindustan Steels
  Ltd., Rourke/av. A.K. Roy and Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 513: 1970
  (3) SCR 343; Mis. Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri
  P.P. Chopra (1969) 3 SCC 653; The Management of
F Panitole Tea Estate v. The Workmen (1971) 1 SCC 742:
  1971 (3) SCR 774; Mis. Tulsidas Paul v. The Second Labour
  Court, WB. and Ors.(1972) 4 SCC 205; Manager, Reserve
  Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC
  100: 2005 (2) SCR 797; Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal
  Corpn.) v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 127: 2006 (1)
G Suppl. SCR 681; Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder
  Kumar (2006) 5 SCC 173: 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 914;
  Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v.
  Mamni (2006) 9 SCC 434: 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 638;
  Regional Manager, SB/ v. Mahatma Mishra (2006) 13 SCC
H
   ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. v.                681
                GITAM SINGH
727: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 216; Haryana Urban                     A
Development Authority v. Om Pal (2007) 5 SCC 742:s 2007
(4) SCR 1091 ; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation
v. M.C.Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353: 2007 (3) SCR 114; Madhya
Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748:
2001' (4) SCR 918; Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat,           B
Gajraula and Anr. (2008) 1 SCC 575: 2007 (13) SCR 672;
Telecom District Manager and Ors. v. Keshab Deb (2008) 8
SCC 402: 2008 (7) SCR 835; Talwara Co-operative Credit
and Service Society Limited v. Sushi/ Kumar (2008) 9 SCC
486: 2008 (14) SCR 53; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State            c
Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr. (2009)15 SCC
327:2009 (10) SCR 908; Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board
v. Laxmi Kant Gupta (2009) 16 SCC 562: 2008
(13) SCR 1051; Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic),
Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 773;         D
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC
558 - relied on.

    Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing·
Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192: 2010 (1) SCR 591; Devinder
Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur (2011) 6 SCC 584: 2011       E
(4) SCR 867 - distinguished.

    L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern
Railway and Anr. (1982) 1 SCC 645: 1982 (3) SCR 251; In-
charge Officer and Anr. v.Shankar Shelly (2010) 9 SCC 126:      F
 2010 (10) SCR 773 - referred to.
                    Case Law Reference:
 1982 (3) SCR 251              Referred to       Para 2
 2010 (10) SCR 773             Referred to       Para 3         G

 1960 SCR 457                  Relied on         Para 5
 1970 (3) SCR 343              Relied on         Para 6
 (1969) 3 sec 653              Relied on         Para 7         H
    682      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 1 S.C.R.


A    1971 (3) SCR 774                Relied on            Para 8
     (1972) 4 sec 205                Relied on            Para 9
     2005 (2) SCR 797                 Relied on           Para 11

B    2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 681          Relied on           Para 13
     2006 (1 ) Suppl. SCR 914         Relied on           Para 14
     2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 638          Relied on           Para 15
     2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 216          Relied on           Para 16
c
     2007 (4) SCR 1091                Relied on           Para 17
     2007 (3) SCR 114                 Relied on           Para 18
     2007 (4) SCR 918                 Relied on           Para 19
D    2007 (13) SCR 672                Relied on           Para 20
     2008 (7) SCR 835                 Relied on           Para 21
     2008 (14) SCR 53                 Relied on           Para 22
E    2009 (10) SCR 908                Relied on           Para 23
     2008 (13) SCR 1051               Relied on           Para 24
     (201 O) 6 sec 773                Relied on           Para 25
     2010 (1) SCR 59                  Distinguished       Para 29
F
     2011 (4) SCR 867                 Distinguished       Para 29
     (2012) 1 sec 558                 Relied on           Para 30
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
G 8415 of 2009.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 20.08.2008 of the High
    Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special
    Appeal No. 4 of 2002.
H
     ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. v.                683
                  GITAM SINGH
      Shobha, Atul Chaubey, Ashok Singh for the Appellants.        A

    Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Naushad Ahmad Khan,
Nakibru Rahman (for Aftab Ali Khan) for the Respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                   B
      R.M. LODHA, J. 1. The short question that arises for
consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is where the
workman had worked for only eight months as daily wager and
his termination has been held to be in contravention of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'ID Act'),   c
whether the direction to the employer for reinstatement with
continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages is legally
sustainable.

      2. We were not disposed to undertake the detailed
exercise but the same has become necessary in view of very         D
vehement contention of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel
for the respondent (workman), that reinstatement must follow
where termination of a workman has been found to be in breach
of Section 25-F of ID Act. He heavily relied upon three
decisions of this Court in L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive          E
Engineer, Southern Railway and Another\ Harjinder Singh v.
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation2 and Devinder Singh
v. Municipal Council, Sanaufl.

     3. On behalf of the appellant, Ms. Shobha, learned            F
counsel, challenged the finding of the Labour Court that the
respondent had worked for 240 days continuously in the year
preceding the date of termination. Alternatively, she submitted
that the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and
25 per cent back wages in the facts of the case was unjustified    G
as the respondent was only a daily wager; he worked for a very
short period from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991 and for last more
1.   (1982) 1 sec 645.
2.   c2010) 3 sec 192.
3.   c2011) 6 sec 584.                                             H
    684       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A than 20 years he is not in the service due to interim orders.
  Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Haryana State
  Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni 4 ,
  Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and
  Another6, Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing
B Board and Anothe,a, Senior Superintendent Telegraph
  (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others7 and In-
  charge Officer and Another v. Shankar Shetty8, she submitted
  that respondent was at best entitled to some compensation for
  unlawful termination.
c      4. It is not in dispute that respondent was engaged as a
  daily wager. The Labour Court, Bharatpur, in its award dated
  28.06.2001 has recorded the findings that the respondent had
  worked as technician (Mistri) under the appellant for 240 days
  for the period from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991 and the
D termination of his service by an oral order on 31.10.1991 was
  violative of Section 25-F of the ID Act. We are not inclined to
  disturb the findings recorded by the Labour Court; we take them
  to be correct. The question, as noted above, is whether
  direction for reinstatement of respondent with continuity in
E service along with 25 per cent of back wages in view of the
  above findings is just and proper.

         5. More than five decades back, this Court in Assam Oil
    Company Limited, New Delhi v. Its Workmen 9 observed that
F   the normal rule in cases of wrongful dismissal was
    reinstatement but there could be cases where it would not be
    expedient to follow this normal rule and to direct reinstatement.
    Having regard to the facts of that case, this Court set aside the
    order of reinstatement although dismissal of the employee was
G 4. (2006) 9 sec 434.
    5.   (2008) 1 sec 575
    6.    c2009) 15 sec 327.
    7.   (2010) 6 sec 773.
    8.   (2010) 9 sec 126.
H   9.   AIR 1960 SC 1264.
     ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. v.                685
            GITAM SINGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
 found to be wrongful and awarded compensation.                     A
      6. In Mis. Hindustan Steels Ltd., Rourke/a v. A.K. Roy
 and Others, 10 this Court noted that there have been cases
 where reinstatement has not been considered as either
 desirable or expedient.
                                                                    B
      7. In Mis. Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri P.P.
   Chopra 11 , this Court reiterated what was stated in Assam Oil
., Company Limited9. In paragraph 6 (pgs. 655-656) of the
   Report, this Court said :
                                                                    c
      "6. The normal rule is that in cases of invalid orders of
      dismissal industrial adjudication would direct reinstatement
      oj a dismissed employee. Nevertheless, there would be
      cases where it would not be expedient to adopt such a
      course. Where, for.instance, the office of the employer was D
      comparatively a small one and the dismissed employee
      held the position of the secretary, a position of confidence
      and trust, and the employer had lost confidence in the
      concerned employee, reinstatement was held to be not fair
      to either party ............... "
                                                                    E
      8. This Court in The Management of Panitole Tea Estate
 v. The Workmen 12, while dealing with the judicial discretion of
 the Labour. Court or the Tribunal under ID Act in directing
 appropriate relief on setting aside the wrongful dismissal of a
 workman, stated in paragraph 5 (pgs. 746-747) as follows:        F
      ".... The question whether on setting aside the wrongful
      dismissal of a workman he should be reinstated or
      directed to be paid compensation is a matter within the
      judicial discretion of the Labour Court or the Tribunal, G
      dealing with the industrial dispute, the general rule in the

 ------
     sec
 10. (1969) 3     513.
 11. (1969) 3 sec 653.
 12. (1971) 1 sec 742.                                              H
    686       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A         absence of any special circumstances being of .
          reinstatement. In exercising this discretion, fairplay towards
          the employee on the one hand and interest of the employer,
          including considerations of discipline in the establishment,
          on the other, require to be duly safeguarded. This is
B         necessary in the interest both of security of tenure of the
          employee and of smooth and harmonious working of the
          establishment. Legitimate interests of both of them have
          to be kept in view if the order is expected to promote tbe
          desired objective of industrial peace and maximum
          poss.ible production. The past record of the employer, the
c         nature of the alleged conduct for which action was taken
          against him, the grounds on which the order of the
          employer is set aside, the nature of the duties performed
          by the employee concerned and the nature of the industrial
          establishment are some of the broad relevant factors
D
          which require to be taken into consideration. The factors
          just stated are merely illustrative and it is not possible to
          exhaustively enumerate them. Each case has to be
          decided on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can be
          laid down to cover generally all conceivable
E         contingencies ...... "

        9. In Mis. Tulsidas Paul v. The Second Labour Court,
    W.B. and Others, 13 this Court relied upon Mis. Hindustan
    Steels Ltd.10 and held as under:
F
          "9. In Hindustan Steels Ltd. v. Roy ((1969) 3 SCC 513]
          we recently held, after considering the previous case-law,
          that though the normal rule, in cases where dismissal or
          removal from service is found to be unjustified, is
          reinstatement, Industrial Tribunals have the discretion to
G
          award compensation in unusual or exceptional
          circumstances where the tribunal considers, on
          consideration of the conflicting claims of the employer on


H   13. (1972) 4 sec 20s.
   ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. v.                    687
          GITAM SINGH [RM. LODHA, J.]
     the one hand and of the workmen on the other,                    A
     reinstatement inexpedient or not desirable. We also held
     that no hard and fast rule as to which circumstances would
     constitute an exception to the general rule can be laid down
     as the tribunal in each case must, in a spirit of fairness and
     justice and in keeping with the objectives of industrial         B
     adjudication, decide whether it should, in the interest of
     justice, depart from the_ general rule."

    10. In L. Robert D'Souza1, this Court in paragraph 27 (pg.
664) held as under:
                                                                      c
     "27 ...........Therefore, assuming that he was a daily-rated
     worker, once he has rendered continuous uninterrupted
     service for a period of one year or more, within the ·
     meaning of Section 25-F of the Act and his service is
     terminated for any reason whatsoever and the case does D
     not fall in any of the excepted categories, notwithstanding
     the fact that Rule 2505 would be attracted, it would have
     to be read subject to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly
     the termination of service in this case would constitute
     retrenchment and for not complying with pre-conditions to E
     valid retrenchment, the order of termination would be illegal
     and invalid."

      11. What has been held by this Court in L. Robert
D'Souza1 is that Section 25-F of the ID Act is applicable to a
daily-rated worker. We do not think that there is any dispute on      F
this proposition.

   12. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S.
Mani and Others14, this Court in paragraph 54 (pg. 120) of the
Report held as under:                                                 G
     "54. Mr. Phadke, as noticed hereinbefore, has referred to
     a large number of decisions for demonstrating that this

14. (2005) s sec 100.                                                 H
    688       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 1 S.C.R.

A         Court had directed reinstatement even if the workmen
          concerned were daily-wagers or were employed
          intermittently. No proposition of law was laid down in the
          aforementioned judgments. The said judgments of this
          Court, moreover, do not lay down any principle having
B         universal application so that the Tribunals, or for that matter
          the High Court, or this Court, may feel compelled to direct
          reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
          The Tribunal has some discretion in this matter. Granf of
          relief must depend on the fact situation obtaining in a
c         particular case. The industrial adjudicator cannot be held
          to be bound to grant some relief only because it will be
          lawful to do so."
        13. In Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal Corpn.) v. State
  of U.P. and Others 15, this Court, while dealing with the non-
D compliance with the provisions of Section 6-N (which is pari
  materia to Section 25-F) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act held
  that the grant of relief of reinstatement with full back wages and
  continuity of service in favour of retrenched workmen would not
  automatically follow or as a matter of course. Instead, this Court
E modified the award of reinstatement with compensation of Rs.
  30,000/- per workman.
       14. In Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar18,
  this Court after having accepted the finding that there was
F violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act, set aside the award of
  reinstatement with back wages and directed the workman to
  be paid monetary compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
       15. In Mamni4 , this Court modified the award of
  reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, though the
G termination of the workman was in violation of Section 25-F of
  the ID Act, by directing that the workman should be
  compensated by payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

    1s. c2006) s sec 121.
H   16. c2006) s sec 173.
    ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. v.                   689
           GITAM SINGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
     16. In Regional Manager, SB/ v. Mahatma Mishra 17, this          A
Court observed that it was one thing to say that services of a
workman were terminated in violation of mandatory provisions
of law but it was another thing to say that relief of reinstatement
in service with full back wages would be granted automatically.
                                                                      B
     17. In Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Om Par 8,
this Court in paragraphs 7 and 8 (pg. 745) of the Report held
as under:
     "7. Moreover, it is also now well settled that despite a wide
     discretionary power conferred upon the Industrial Courts C
     under Section 11-A of the 194 7 Act, the relief of
     reinstatement with full back wages should not be granted
     automatically only because it would be lawful to do so.
     Grant of relief would depend on the fact situation obtaining
     in each case. It will depend upon several factors, one of D
     which would be as to whether the recruitment was effected
     in terms of the statutory provisions operating in the field, if
     any.
     8. The respondent work.ed for a very short period. He only       E
     worked, as noticed hereinbefore, in 1994-95. The Industrial
     Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, therefore, in our opinion
     committed an illegality, while passing an award in the year
     2003, directing the reinstatement of the respondent with
     full back wages. Although we are of the opinion that the
     respondent was not entitled to any relief, whatsoever, we        F
     direct the appellant to pay him a sum of Rs. 25,000."
     18. In Uttaranchsl Forest Development Corporation v.
M. C.Josh1, 9, the Court was concerned with a daily wager who
had worked with Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation            G
from 01.08.1989 to 24.11.1991 and whose services were held

11. (2ooe) 13 sec 121.
1a. (2001) 5 sec 353.
1e. (2001) e sec 353.                                                 H
    690       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A to be terminated in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial
  Disputes Act. The Labour Court had directed the reinstatement
  of the workman with 50 per cent back wages from the date the
  industrial dispute was raised. Setting aside the order of
  reinstatement and back wages, this Court awarded
B compensation in a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the
  workman keeping in view the nature and period of service
  rendered by the workman and the fact that industrial dispute
  was raised after six years.

C      19. In Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban 20 , this
  Court upheld the order of the Industrial Court passed in its
  jurisdiction under Section 11A of the ID Act awarding
  compensation and set aside the judgment of the Single Judge
  and the Division Bench that ordered the reinstatement of the
  workman with full back wages. The Court in paragraph 12 (pg.
D 755) of the Report held as under:

          "12. In this case, the Industrial Court exercised its
          discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the
          Industrial Disputes Act. It merely directed the amount of
E         compensation to which the respondent was entitled had
          the provisions of Section 25-F been complied with should
          be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We are not
          suggesting that the High Court could not interfere with the
          said order, but the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by
F         the Industrial Court, in our opinion, should have been taken
          into consideration for determination of the question as to
          what relief should be granted in the peculiar facts and
          circumstances of this case. Each case is required to be
          dealt with in the fact situation obtaining therein."

G      20. In Mahboob Deepak5, this Court stated that an order
  of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P.
  lndu.strial Disputes Act may be set aside but an order of
  reinstatement should not however be automatically passed. The
  Court observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 (pg. 578) of the Report
H as follows:-
   ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. v.                    691
          GITAM SINGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
     "11. The High Court, on the other hand, did not consider        A
     the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Section
     6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant
     was entitled to compensation~ notice and notice pay.

     12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this
                                                                     8
     Court that in a situation of this nature instead and in place
     of directing reinstatement with full back wages, the
     workmen should be granted adequate monetary
     compensation. (See M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban 20 )."

      21. In Telecom District Manager and Others v. Keshab           C
     21
Deb , this Court said that even if the provisions of Section 25-
F of the l.D. Act had not been complied with, the workman was
only entitled to just compensation.

     22. In Ta/wara Co-operative Credit and Service Society          D
Limited v. Sushi/ Kumar2 2, this Court in paragraph 8 (pg. 489)
of the Report held as under :

     "8. Grant of a relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not
     automatic. Grant of back wages is also not automatic. The
     Industrial Courts while exercising their power under            E
     Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are
     required to strike a balance in a situation of this nature.
     For the said purpose, certain relevant factors, as for
     example, nature of service, the mode and manner of
     recruitment viz. whether the appointment had been made          F
     in accordance with the statutory rules so far as a public
     sector undertaking is concerned, etc., should be taken into
     consideration."

    23. In Jagbir Singh 6 , this Court, speaking through one of      G
us (R.M. Lodha, J.) while dealing with the question of

20. (2007) g sec 748.
21. c2008) 8 sec 402.
22. c2008) g sec 486.                                                H
    692      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 1 S.C.R.

A consequential relief arising from the facts quite similar to the
  present case, ordered compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid
  by the employer to the workman instead of reinstatement. In
  paragraph 14 (pg.335) of the Report, this Court held as under:

B         "14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions
          in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order
          of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F
          although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement
          should not, however, be automatically passed. The award
          of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the
c         workman has completed 240 days of work in a year
          preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers
          has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead
          compensation has been awarded. This Court has
          distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a
D         post and a permanent employee."

       24. In Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Laxmi Kant
  Gupta23, this Court stated, ".... now there is no such principle
  that for an illegal termination of service the normal rule is
E reinstatement with back wages, and instead the Labour Court
  can award compensation".

       25. In Santosh Kumar Seaf, while dealing with a case of
  workmen who were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years
F back and had hardly worked for two or three years, this Court
  speaking through one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) held that
  reinstatement with back wages could not be said to be justified
  and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends
  of justice. It was held that compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each
G of the workmen would meet the ends of justice.

         26. From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be
    said without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held

H 2a. (2009) 16 sec 562.
    ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV: CORP. v.                     693
           GITAM SINGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal,         A
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 dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in cases           B
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.             c
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 re,gular post for the purposes of consequential relief.
                                                                        D
      27. We shall now consider two decisions of this Court in
 Harjinder Singh 2 and Devinder Singh 3 upon which heavy
 reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the
 respondent. In Harjinder Singh 2 , this Court did interfere with the
 order of the High Court which awarded compensation to the              E
workman by modifying the award of reinstatement passed by
the Labour Court. However, on close scrutiny of facts it
transpires that that was a case where a workman was initially
 employed by Punjab State Warehousing Corporation as work-
charge motor mate but after few months he was appointed as              F
work munshi in the regular pay-scale for three months. His
service was extended from time to time and later on by one
month's notice given by the Managing Director of the
Corporation his service was brought to end on 05.07.1988. The
workman challenged the implementation of the notice in a writ           G
petition and by an interim order the High Court stayed the
implementation of that notice but later on the writ petition was
withdrawn with liberty to the workman to avail his remedy under
the ID Act. After two months, the Managing Director of the
Corporation issued notice dated 26.11.1992 for retrenchment             H
    694     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 1 S.C.R.


A of the workman along with few others by giving them one
  month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice as per the
  requirement of Section 25-F(a) of the ID Act. On industrial
  dispute being raised, the Labour Court found that there was
  compliance of Section 25-F but it was found that the termination
B was violative of Section 25-G of the ID Act and, accordingly,
  Labour Court passed an award for reinstatement of the
  workman with 50 per cent back wages. The Single Judge of
  that High Court did not approve the award of reinstatement on
  the premise that the initial appointment of the workman was not
c in consonance with the statutory regulations and Articles 14 and
  16 of the Constitution and accordingly, substituted the award
  of reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages by directing that
  the workman shall be paid a sum of Rs. 87,582/- by way of
  compensation. It is this order of the Single Judge that was set
D aside by this Court and order of the Labour Court restored. We
  are afraid the facts in Harjinder Singh 2 are quite distinct. That
  was not a case of a daily-rated worker. It was held that Single
  Judge was wrong in entertaining an unfounded plea that
  workman was employed in violation of Articles 14 and 16.
E Harjinder Singh2 turned on its own facts and is not applicable
  to the facts of the present case at all.

       28. In Devinder Singh 3 , the workman was engaged by
  Municipal Council, Sanaur on 01.08.1994 for doing the work
  of clerical nature. He continued in service till 29.09.1996. His
F service was discontinued with effect from 30.09.1996 in
  violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. On industrial dispute being
  referred for adjudication, the Labour Court held that the
  workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar
  year preceding the termination of his service and his service
G was terminated without complying with the provisions of
  Section 25-F. Accordingly, Labour Court passed an award for
  reinstatement of the workman but without back wages. Upon
  challenge being laid to the award of the Labour Court, the
  Division Bench set aside the order of the Labour Court by
H holding that Labour Court should not have ordered
   ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. v.                695
          GITAM SINGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
reinstatement of the workman because his appointment was A
contrary to the Recruitment Rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. In the appeal before this Court from the order of
the Division Bench, this Court held that the High Court had
neither found any jurisdictional infirmity in the award of the
Labour Court nor it came to the conclusion that the award was B
vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record
and notwithstanding these the High Court set aside the direction
given by the Labour Court for reinstatement of the workman by
assuming that his initial appointment was contrary to law. The
approach of the High Court was found to be erroneous by this      c
Court. This Court, accordingly, set aside the order of the High
Court and restored the award of the Labour Court. In Devinder
Singh3 , the Court had not dealt with the question about the
consequential relief to be granted to the workman whose
termination was held to be illegal being in violation of Section D
25-F.

      29. In our view, Harjinder Singh 2 and Devinder Singh3 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 E
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 F
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 G
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.

    30. We may also refer to a recent decision of this Court in   H
    696      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 1 S.C.R.

A   Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh 24 • That was a
  case where the workmen, who were daily wagers during the
  year 1984-85, were terminated without following Section 25-F.
  The industrial dispute was raised after five years and although
  the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement of the workmen
B which was not interfered by the High Court, this Court set aside
  the award of reinstatement and ordered payment of
  compensation. In paragraphs 4 and 5 (pg.559) of the Report
  this Court held as under:

          "4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid down
c         that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation
          of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set
          aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed.
          This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who
          does not hold a post and a permanent employee.
D
          5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact
          that the respondent workmen were engaged as "daily
          wagers" and they had merely worked for more than 240
          days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot
E         be said to be justified and instead, monetary
          compensation would meet the ends of justice."

       31. In light of the above legal position and having regard
  to the facts of the present case, namely, the workman was
  engaged as daily wager on 01.03.1991 and he worked hardly
F for eight months from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991, in our view,
  the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion
  appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour
  Court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single Judge as well
  as the Division Bench of the High Court also erred in not
G considering the above aspect at all. The award dated
  28.06.2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent with
  continuity of service and 25% back wages in the facts and
  circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be
H 24. (2012) 1 sec 558.
  ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. v.               697
         GITAM SINGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]
set aside and is set aside. In our view, compensation of Rs. A
50,000/- by the appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends
of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made
to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the
same will carry interest @ 9 per cent per annum.
                                                                B
    32. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent with
no order as to costs.

K.K.T.                                Appeal partly allowed.