THE LATEST CASE REGARDING REINSTATEMENT OF THE

EMPLOYEES

The M.G.T. of the Director (garden) D.D.A

Vs.
•
P.O.Labour Court-V & ANR .

Brief Facts: The respondent workman was a casual worker and has worked for
the petitioner DDA for 15 months only and was not even having the requisite
qualifications and was not appointed as per the statutory rules for recruitment for
the post to which he has been reinstated and more than 30 years have lapsed since
the respondent workman has last worked for the petitioner DDA. The respondent
workman had admittedly worked for over 240 days, in fact for 15 months with the
petitioner DDA

Labour Court: the court granted ex parte award dated 26th November, 1988 of
reinstatement of the respondent No.2 workman with full back wages at the rate of
last drawn wages and/or minimum wages whichever is higher.

The plea of the petitioner DDA is that the respondent workman had abandoned
the work and raised the dispute as an afterthought. However, the fact remains that
even if the respondent workman had so abandoned the employment of the
petitioner DDA, the petitioner DDA did not treat the same as misconduct on the
part of the respondent workman and did not initiate any inquiry or impose any
penalty on the respondent workman on this ground.

The compensation ought to be given: The respondent workman has already been
receiving minimum wages in terms of the award from the petitioner DDA right
since 1984 without doing any work whatsoever for the petitioner DDA. It is stated
that a sum of approximately Rs.3, 00,000/- has been so received by the respondent
workman from the petitioner DDA.

The counsel for the respondent workman contends that the respondent workman
was not a casual worker but had been selected on the basis of interview; that the
petitioner DDA had regularized all the casual workers save the respondent
workman. He therefore presses for the relief of reinstatement.


(WP(C) No.2933/1992)

1
 •
Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Courts are to ensure
that a workman who has not been found guilty cannot be deprived of what he is
entitled to get; that when a workman has been illegally deprived of his
employment, then that is misconduct on the part of the employer and employer
cannot possibly be permitted to deprive a person of what is due to him. Damages
were held to be a poor substitute for reinstatement. The court held that the
approach of the Courts must be compatible with the constitutional philosophy of
which the Directive Principle of State Policy constitutes an integral part. It was
held that justice due to the workman should not be denied by entertaining specious
and untenable grounds put forward by the employer. Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana
•
State Agriculture Marketing Board it was held by the Supreme Court that “justice
is the buzzword in the matter of adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, it
would be wholly improper on the part of the superior courts to make them apply
the cold letter of the statute to act mechanically. Rendition of justice would bring
within its purview giving a person what is due to him and not what can be given to
him in law. A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be
lawful to do so. If that principle is applied, the functions of an Industrial Court
shall lose much of their significance”.

Delhi High Court: the respondent workman was not entitled to reinstatement but
only to the compensation in lieu of reinstatement and due to the following factors:
(i) the respondent workman having worked with the petitioner for about 15 months
only.
(ii) The respondent workman now being not in the employment of the petitioner
for over 30 years and likely to be at the fag-end of his employment.
(iii) If the respondent workman is now reinstated with consequential benefits, it
would disturb the harmony in the cadre and may lead to several other disputes.

Instead of the relief of back wages and reinstatement with all the consequential
benefits, the respondent workman shall in addition to the amounts already
received, be entitled to compensation of a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the
petitioner. The petitioner to pay the said amount within four weeks here-from
failing which the same shall incur interest at 9% per annum.


(MANU/SC/0060/2010)

(2009 (9) JT 396)