Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18222-DB L.P.A. NO. 548 OF 2022 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 548 of 2022 Central Bank of India, a body corporate and constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act V of 1970 having its head office at Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 in the State of Mahrastra and having branches at several other places and also at Arrah, P.O. and P.S. Arrah, District Arrah represented through its Manager, Mr. Sujeet Kumar, S/o Sri Arbind Kumar, having office at Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, District- Patna, Bihar. ... Appellant Versus 1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, P.O. & P.S. & District- New Delhi - 110 001. 2. Krishna Kumar, S/o Chandra Shekhar Ram, R/o Qtr. No. 16/D, Railway Colony, Mal Godam, P.O. & P.S.- Arrah, Dist.- Bhojpur- 802301. … Respondents ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- For the Appellant : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Adv. For the Resp. : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Amicus Curiae ---- CAV on: 17/01/2025 Pronounced on : 15/06/2026 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned amicus curiae appearing for the respondents. Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18222-DB L.P.A. NO. 548 OF 2022 2 2. This appeal is directed against that part of the order dated 11-11-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 4668 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the impugned order has been modified from regularization of services to reinstatement in service as part-time sweeper with effect from 01-04-1999 with 50% back wages. 3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the writ petitioner had engaged the respondent no. 2 intermittently for cleaning and sweeping of the Bank premises by the In-charge of the Bank on some occasions in the year 1998-99 on payment of Rs. 5/- on each occasion. He was never appointed on daily wages either against a leave vacancy or temporary vacancy. It has been stated that the respondent no. 2 had lastly worked on 31-03-1999 and thereafter he was not engaged for any work of cleaning and sweeping in the bank. The respondent no. 2 had approached the Patna High Court for regularization of his services in a Class IV post, but the said writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 3023/2000 was dismissed on 03-09-2004. The respondent no. 2 had thereafter raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Patna which ended in failure and the Central Government had referred the dispute for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The terms of reference was as follows: “Whether the claim of Sri Krishna Kumar that he was engaged on daily wage basis by the Management of Central Bank of India during the period from 02.08.1997 to 31.03.1999 is correct? If so, what relief is he entitled to? Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Sri Krishna Kumar is justified and legal? If not what relief is he entitled? 4. An Award was passed in Reference Case No. 102 of 2003 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18222-DB L.P.A. NO. 548 OF 2022 3 Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad on 05-01-2012 in which the reference was answered in favour of the respondent no. 2 and it was held that the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service as part-time sweeper with effect from 01-04-1999 with 50% back wages and be regularized. Being aggrieved with the Award dated 05-01-2012, the petitioner had preferred a writ application being W.P.(L) No. 4668 of 2012 which was disposed of on 11-11-2020 by modifying the Award in the following manner: “the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service as part-time sweeper with effect from 01-04- 1999 with 50% back wages” 5. Assailing the impugned order dated 11-11-2020, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the fact as to whether the retrenchment was unlawful or not and in absence of there being any such finding, the respondent no. 2 could not have been directed to be reinstated in service even as part-time sweeper. The learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration that the respondent no. 2 was neither a permanent worker nor did he work on daily wage basis against a leave vacancy or temporary vacancy. Mr. P.A.S. Pati has submitted that the reinstatement cannot be automatic and transgression of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act being established, suitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy. It has also been submitted that once the learned Single Judge had come to a conclusion that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, the impugned order ought to have been set aside in its entirety. Mr. Pati has relied upon the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177. 6. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the respondent no. 2 was working in the petitioner Bank as a part-time sweeper Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18222-DB L.P.A. NO. 548 OF 2022 4 and the learned Single Judge has simply modified the Award of the Tribunal and the present Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, does not have any legs to stand. The issue of regularization has been left open though it has not been denied by the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 has continued working in the Bank on a part-time basis. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have perused the affidavits on record. 8. On a perusal of the Award dated 05-01-2012, it transpires that the respondent no. 2 was terminated from service after working continuously from 02-08-1997 to 31-03-1999. As per the case of the respondent no. 2, such termination was without notice, notice pay or providing retrenchment compensation and finding such assertion to be true, the learned Tribunal has held that the respondent no. 2 is entitled to be reinstated in service as part-time sweeper with effect from 01-04-1999 along with 50% back wages and be regularized. This Award was modified by the learned Single Judge by omitting the word regularization in view of the observation made by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3023 of 2000. The order of the learned Single Judge has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant by asserting that the respondent no. 2 at best can be extended monetary compensation. In the context of the above submission, we may refer to the case of BSNL v. Bhurumal (supra) wherein it has been held as follows: “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 mala fide and/or by way of Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18222-DB L.P.A. NO. 548 OF 2022 5 victimisation, 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 a 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 regularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)17]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation 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. Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18222-DB L.P.A. NO. 548 OF 2022 6 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 were regularised 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.” 9. There is no denial of the fact that the mandatory requirements enshrined in Section 25(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been followed by the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 who was a daily wage worker, all of a sudden, found himself out of service. As has been held in the judgment under reference, the workmen should be given monetary compensation as reinstatement with back wages is not automatic. Various classifications have been made with respect to the category of terminated employees and the respondent no. 2 falling in the category of a daily wage terminated employee would deserve monetary compensation. The learned Single Judge has not explored the issue of monetary compensation which is the only avenue available to the respondent no. 2 as a solace. 10. During the hearing of this appeal, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant had offered an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as monetary compensation to finally lay the dispute to rest, but no response appears to have been forthcoming from Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18222-DB L.P.A. NO. 548 OF 2022 7 the respondent no. 2. Nonetheless, since the respondent no. 2 is only entitled to monetary compensation in view of the case of BSNL v. Bhurumal (supra), instead of remanding the matter, we fix the monetary compensation at Rs. 3 lakhs payable by the petitioner to the respondent no. 2 within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This amount of monetary compensation has been arrived at by us taking into consideration the prolonged duration of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2. 11. As a consequence, to the conclusions arrived at by us, the Award dated 05-01-2012 in Reference Case No. 102/2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and the order dated 11-11-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 4668 of 2012 is modified to the extent that the respondent no. 2 is entitled only to an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs as monetary compensation which is to be paid by the petitioner/appellant within the time specified by us above. 12. This appeal stands disposed of. 13. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 15th Day of June, 2026 Preet/N.A.F.R. Uploaded on: 24 /06/2026.