[2025:RJ-JP:35631-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 19/2023 Kumari Chandra Alwani D/o Shri B.C. Alwani, Residing At Quarter No. 504, Rajapark, Sindhi Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Station Manager, (Now Designated As Area Marketing Manager) Indian Airlines Limited, Nehru Complex, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 2. General Manager (Personnel) Indian Airlines Limited, Northern Region, Safdarjung Airport (Now IGI Airport, Terminal 1B) New Delhi. 3. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court, Jaipur, D-228, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Utkarsh Dubey, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal, Adv. with Ms. Trishna Sanjay Karnik, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 04/09/2025 1. The challenge is to the judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the award dated 28.07.2005 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur was modified and the award passed by the Labour Court(directing reinstatement and continuity of service with 50% back wages) was modified to the extent of granting of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the workman. [2025:RJ-JP:35631-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-19/2023] 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-workman submits that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to modify the award of reinstatement moreso, as the post was lying vacant and there had been a clear violation of Section 25(F) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1947’). In view of the findings of violation of the aforesaid provisions, the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement. He submits that the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ranbir Singh vs Executive Eng. P.W.D.: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 670 was only with reference to the violation for granting compensation, in lieu of reinstatement was only with reference to violation of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that in cases relating to breach of Section 25(F) of the Act of 1947, persons who are working on daily wages basis, the Courts are usually inclined to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement, as even after reinstatement the authority may terminate the services by giving her due compensation. In view thereto, the grant of compensation would be just and proper but where the case relates to violation of Section 25(F) and 25(H) of the Act of 1947, the Court must not disturb the relief of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that judgment passed by learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. It is a clear case where the appellant had been engaged as Bilingual Typist on 08.06.1993 on daily wages basis and worked there tenure up to 10.04.1996, therefore, she could have been suitably compensated. The learned Single [2025:RJ-JP:35631-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-19/2023] Judge has therefore, suitably awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-workman has relied upon the judgment of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal: (2014) 7 SCC 177 and Ranbir Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD (supra) as well as the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in The Director, Tiger Project Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal Alwar & Anr.: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.406/2018 decided on 31.07.2018. 6. We have considered the submissions. 7. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held 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 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. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34. 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 (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 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. [2025:RJ-JP:35631-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-19/2023] 35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him wee regularized under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied.” 8. Ranbir Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD (supra) considering Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “6. In the light of the state of the law, which we take note of, we notice certain facts which are not in dispute. This is a case where it is found that, though the appellant had worked for 240 days, appellant’s service was terminated, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The authority involved in this case, apparently, is a public authority. At the same time, it is common case that the appellant was a daily wager and the appellant was not a permanent employee. It is relevant to note that, in the award answering Issue No.1, which was, whether the termination of the appellant’s service was justified and in order, and if not, what was the amount of back wages he was entitled to, it was found, inter alia, that the appellant could not adduce convincing evidence to establish retention of junior workers. There is no finding of unfair trade practice, as such. In such circumstances, we think that the principle, which is enunciated by this Court, in the decision, which is referred to in Raj Kumar (supra), which we have referred to, would be more appropriate to follow. In other words, we find that reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of Section 25F being established, suitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy. 7. In such circumstance, noticing that, though the appellant was reinstated after the award of the Labour Court in 2006, the appellant has not been working since 2009 following the impugned order, and also taking note of the fact that the appellant was, in all likelihood, employed otherwise, also the interest of justice would be best subserved with modifying the impugned order and directing that in place of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), as lumpsum compensation, appellant be paid Rs.3.25 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand), as compensation, taking into consideration also the fact that the appellant had already been paid Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation.” 9. In The Director, Tiger Project Vs. Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal Alwar & Anr. (supra) the Division Bench held as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:35631-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-19/2023] “It is, no doubt, true that the relief of reinstatement with back wages or without back wages can be granted if the retrenchment is found to be illegal but we do not find the aforesaid relief is appropriate in the facts of these cases. It is not only that mode of appointments has been shown to be as is coming out from the record but the period subsequent to termination till date is of more than 25 to 30 years and even more. In few cases, even the workmen have already attained the age of superannuation thus relief of reinstatement cannot be granted. The intervening period of twenty five to thirty years is substantial period because, ordinarily, an employee remains in service for 35 years. It can be less or more in some cases. Accordingly, the relief of reinstatement is not appropriate in these cases. If the aforesaid relief is not to be given then question remains about back wages which otherwise should not be granted without reinstatement. Taking into consideration the period of litigation before this court and the period intervening, we are of the opinion that the non-appellants- workmen should be awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement. It would be even for the reason that even if reinstatement in few cases is made, workman at the advance age would be working only for few years and presumably they may have settled in their life during intervening period of 25 to 30 years or more. Accordingly, lump sum compensation is awarded to the workmen taking into consideration the period of employment. Therefore, we order that if a workman has worked upto one year, he is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. If a workman had worked upto two years, he is awarded Rs.1,50,000/-. If a workman has worked up to three years, he is awarded Rs.2,50,000/- and if a workman has worked for more than three years, he is awarded Rs.3,00,000/-. With the aforesaid modification in the orders of the learned Single Judge, all the appeals are disposed of. The compensation, as ordered, would be paid taking into consideration the period of working, as held by the Labour Court in its award. The awards of the Labour Court and the orders of the learned Single Judge are interfered with the aforesaid. The relief is substituted. The amount of compensation would be paid to the non-appellants- workmen within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.” 10. The issue with regard to grant of compensation instead of reinstatement has time and again been taken up by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Several judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court are in favour of reinstatement, as the normal course for grant of relief violates several cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that compensation would be an appropriate relief. [2025:RJ-JP:35631-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-19/2023] 11. In the facts of the present case, we noticed that the Tribunal found a violation of Section 25(F) as well as violation of Section 25(H) of the Act of 1947. The findings arrived at by the Labour Court have not been disturbed on the aforesaid two aspects. The learned Single Judge had reached to the same conclusion as that of the Labour Court and that after terminating services of the appellant another person has been appointed in her place and the post was perennial in nature. There is no occasion for denying reinstatement to the concerned workman without disturbing the findings regarding violation of Section 25(H) of the Act of 1947. 12. In our opinion, the grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, would amount to encouraging the employer to remove a person and appoint someone else of their choice. Such approach of the employer would harm the employee and the industrial units at large. The very purpose of the Act of 1947 is to provide sustenance and protection to the workman at large that they should not be exploited. The Principle of Section 25(H) of the Act of 1947 basically is to avoid such violations which emanates the ethos of the Constitution. 13. In these circumstances, therefore, the Court must not interfere with regard to the relief granted to a workman, unless a finding is given, otherwise, relating to the aspect of violation of Section 25(H) of the Act of 1947. We therefore, are unable to sustain the order passed by learned Single Judge and accordingly, set aside the aspect regarding the relief of compensation awarded to the appellant. We direct that the appellant to be reinstated with the same terms as passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court order dated 28.07.2005. [2025:RJ-JP:35631-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-19/2023] 14 Accordingly, the present Special Appeal (Writ) is allowed. The order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. 15. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/100