Kawar Singh v. Executive Engineer, Suburban Division, Hvpn, Fazilpur, Sonepat And Another




    
        !"#$"%&'&#()* 
 



      !" #  



#

+++  )  ,

 -


 -
 .  ,

 -
 /  

0"'"(!) $ %



# # &  



++++ 

 -
 .1 0 2 '$()*+,(- ().)/  

  1  #   &#2 &3*#2 

&  



#  !

 

 # 

  %  ## #2 &3*#2  &  

  # #





   # # &  4 ## ).

5) ).)6 2 '7 

566.) &).., &#2  

#     # & - '

 %   

## # & % 

  

 )

-#  &  

 %   

 #

 &   # &.,2 #.6% 

# &    %   ##   &

/....8( % ##    #

,

#



  #   1# 908$: #2   &   # &.,2 #.6% 

    %## - '

 ###  %  .5 ./ ).., 0 # &- '

   #22 & &   #  4 # %  # # % #&#  # &  - '

### %    &

/....8(  # & %   #  ;# % &   %'

  & 3 0 !- (%3 0&4 5&5&!"67' 38085 21 9*-**   #   



 '

 % # &## %    # & %    & #;# %   ## #<(
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 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 S   )/-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.

LPA-1091-2025 (O&M) -334.

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 nonpayment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under    )/-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 dailywage 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. ;# %3 0 !- (%3 0 = > &  # 2  %'

 ;# %  &-! !"#$ !! 0 :3 (67'

;/85 01 9-< < /

'

?2#  &#2% 

 

# # %

#



 -
 .     /     *

  

1 8

# < @ 8

 

 < @ 8