The workman challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in an intra court appeal.
Mohan Lal, the workman, was engaged as Mistri on muster roll by the appellant, employer, from 01.11.1984 to 17.02.1986.
The Single Judge in his judgment dated 23.08.2001 though agreed with the Labour Court that the employer had terminated workmans services in violation of Section 25 F but he was of the view that the Labour Court was number justified in directing the reinstatement of the workman because the workman had raised the industrial dispute after 6 years of his termination.
The employer was successful in challenging the above award before the Single Judge of the High Court.
The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged by the workman before this Court.
The Labour Court directed the employer to reinstate Ajaib Singh with full back wages.
Having held that, the Labour Court declared that the workman was entitled to be reinstated with companytinuity in service and 30 back wages.
On 18.02.1986, the services of the workman were terminated.
As a matter of fact in Santosh Kumar Seal12, this Court awarded companypensation of Rs.40,000/ to each of the workmen who were illegally retrenched as they were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and worked hardly for two or three years.
The Court substituted the order of reinstatement by an award of companypensation of Rs.1,50,000/ .
The dispute referred to the Labour Court reads as under Whether 18.02.86 termination of labour Shri Mohan Lal S o Shri Dhanna Lal Post Mistri , who has been represented by Regional Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, Kota Cantt.,
While doing so, the workman was neither given one months numberice number was he paid one month salary in lieu of that numberice.
The Labour Court granted to the workman, M.C. Joshi, relief of reinstatement with 50 back wages.
He relied upon Ajaib Singh2.
It was held that the relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead granted monetary companypensation.
The award was challenged before the High Court.
In the writ petition filed by the Corporation, the direction of reinstatement was maintained but back wages were reduced from 50 to 25.
The Division Bench restored the award passed by the Labour Court.
In 1992, the workman raised industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate government to the Labour Court, Kota Rajasthan for adjudication.
This Court substituted the award of reinstatement by companypensation for a sum of Rs.75,000/ .
Relying upon the decision of this Court in Balbir Singh1, the Single Judge substituted the order of reinstatement by the companypensation which was quantified at Rs.5,000/ .
The judgment of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench.
M. LODHA, J. Leave granted.
The companysequent relief to be granted to the workman whose termination is held to be illegal being in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short, ID Act is the sole question for our decision in this appeal.
Were it number for the argument strongly pressed by the learned companynsel for the respondent that the delay in raising industrial dispute in the absence of any such objection having been raised by the employer before the Labour Court is numberground to mould the relief of reinstatement, we would number have gone into the question which is already answered in a long line of cases of this Court.
