Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8415 OF 2009

Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & Anr.                …… Appellants

   Vs.

Gitam Singh                   …… Respondent

JUDGMENT

R.M. LODHA, J.  

The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal,  

by special leave, is where the workman had worked for only eight months  

as daily wager and his termination has been held to be in contravention of  

Section  25-F  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (for  short,  ‘ID  Act’),  

whether the direction to the employer for reinstatement with continuity of  

service and 25 per cent back wages is legally sustainable.  

2. We were not disposed to undertake the detailed exercise but  

the same has become necessary in view of very vehement contention of  

Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent (workman), that  

1

Page 2

reinstatement must follow where termination of a workman has been found  

to be in breach of Section 25-F of ID Act.  He heavily relied upon three  

decisions  of  this  Court  in   L.  Robert  D’Souza  v.  Executive  Engineer,  

Southern  Railway  and  Another1,  Harjinder  Singh  v.  Punjab  State  

Warehousing  Corporation2  and  Devinder  Singh  v.  Municipal  Council,   

Sanaur3 .   

3. On  behalf  of  the  appellant,  Ms.  Shobha,  learned  counsel,  

challenged the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent had worked  

for 240 days continuously in the year preceding the date of termination.  

Alternatively, she submitted that the award of reinstatement with continuity  

of  service  and  25  per  cent  back  wages  in  the  facts  of  the  case  was  

unjustified as the respondent was only a daily wager; he worked for a very  

short period from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991 and for last more than 20 years  

he is not in the service due to interim orders.   Relying upon the decisions  

of this Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v.  

Mamni4,  Mahboob Deepak  v.  Nagar  Panchayat,  Gajraula  and Another5,   

Jagbir Singh v.  Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another6,   

Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal   

and Others7 and  In-charge Officer  and Another v.  Shankar Shetty8,  she  

1 (1982) 1 SCC 645 2  (2010) 3 SCC 192 3  (2011) 6 SCC 584 4  (2006) 9 SCC 434 5  (2008) 1 SCC 575 6  (2009) 15 SCC 327 7  (2010) 6 SCC 773 8  (2010) 9 SCC 126

2

Page 3

submitted that respondent was at best entitled to some compensation for  

unlawful termination.

4. It  is  not in dispute that respondent was engaged as a daily  

wager.  The Labour Court, Bharatpur, in its award dated 28.06.2001 has  

recorded the findings that the respondent had worked as technician (Mistri)  

under  the  appellant  for  240  days  for  the  period  from  01.03.1991  to  

31.10.1991  and  the  termination  of  his  service  by  an  oral  order  on  

31.10.1991 was  violative  of  Section  25-F  of  the ID  Act.    We  are  not  

inclined to disturb the findings recorded by the Labour Court; we take them  

to  be  correct.  The  question,  as  noted  above,  is  whether  direction  for  

reinstatement of  respondent with continuity in service along with 25 per  

cent of back wages in view of the above findings  is just and proper.

5. More  than  five  decades  back,  this  Court  in  Assam  Oil  

Company Limited, New Delhi v.  Its Workmen9 observed that the normal  

rule in cases of wrongful dismissal was reinstatement but there could be  

cases where it  would not be expedient to follow this normal rule and to  

direct reinstatement. Having regard to the facts of that case, this Court set  

aside the order of reinstatement although dismissal of the employee was  

found to be wrongful and awarded compensation.

6. In  M/s.  Hindustan  Steels  Ltd.,  Rourkela v.  A.K.  Roy  and  

Others10, this Court noted that there have been cases where reinstatement  

has not been considered as either desirable or expedient.

9  AIR 1960 SC 1264 10  (1969) 3 SCC 513

3

Page 4

7. In M/s. Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri P.P. Chopra11,  

this Court reiterated what was stated in Assam Oil Company Limited9.  In  

paragraph 6 (pgs. 655-656) of the Report, this Court said  :

“6. The  normal  rule  is  that  in  cases  of  invalid  orders  of  dismissal  industrial  adjudication would direct reinstatement  of  a  dismissed  employee.  Nevertheless,  there  would  be  cases  where  it  would  not  be  expedient  to  adopt  such  a  course. Where, for instance, the office of the employer was  comparatively a small one and the dismissed employee held  the position of the secretary, a position of confidence and  trust, and the employer had lost confidence in the concerned  employee,  reinstatement was held  to  be not  fair  to  either  party……………”

8. This Court in The Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. The  

Workmen12, while dealing with the judicial discretion of the Labour Court or  

the Tribunal under ID Act in directing appropriate relief on setting aside the  

wrongful dismissal of a workman, stated in paragraph 5 (pgs. 746-747) as  

follows:

“….  The  question  whether  on  setting  aside  the  wrongful  dismissal of a workman he should be reinstated or directed  to  be  paid  compensation  is  a  matter  within  the  judicial  discretion of the Labour Court or the Tribunal, dealing with  the industrial dispute, the general rule in the absence of any  special circumstances being of reinstatement. In exercising  this  discretion,  fairplay  towards the  employee  on the  one  hand and interest of the employer, including considerations  of discipline in the establishment, on the other, require to be  duly safeguarded. This is necessary in the interest both of  security  of  tenure  of  the  employee  and  of  smooth  and  harmonious  working  of  the  establishment.  Legitimate  interests of both of them have to be kept in view if the order   is  expected  to  promote  the  desired  objective  of  industrial   peace and maximum possible production. The past record of  the employer,  the nature of the alleged conduct for  which  action  was taken  against  him,  the  grounds  on  which  the  

11  (1969) 3 SCC 653 12  (1971) 1 SCC 742

4

Page 5

order of the employer is set aside, the nature of the duties  performed by the employee concerned and the nature of the  industrial  establishment  are  some  of  the  broad  relevant  factors  which  require  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  factors  just  stated  are  merely  illustrative  and  it  is  not  possible to exhaustively enumerate them. Each case has to  be decided on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can be  laid  down  to  cover  generally  all  conceivable  contingencies……”

9. In  M/s. Tulsidas Paul v.The Second Labour Court, W.B. and  

Others13,  this Court relied upon  M/s. Hindustan Steels Ltd.10 and held as  

under:

“9. In  Hindustan Steels Ltd. v.  Roy [(1969) 3 SCC 513] we  recently held, after considering the previous case-law, that  though the normal rule, in cases where dismissal or removal  from  service  is  found  to  be  unjustified,  is  reinstatement,  Industrial  Tribunals  have  the  discretion  to  award  compensation  in  unusual  or  exceptional  circumstances  where  the  tribunal  considers,  on  consideration  of  the  conflicting claims of the employer on the one hand and of  the workmen on the other, reinstatement inexpedient or not  desirable.  We  also  held  that  no  hard  and fast  rule  as  to  which circumstances would  constitute  an exception  to  the  general rule can be laid down as the tribunal in each case  must, in a spirit of fairness and justice and in keeping with  the  objectives  of  industrial  adjudication,  decide  whether  it  should,  in  the  interest  of  justice,  depart  from the  general   rule.”

10. In  L. Robert  D’Souza1,  this Court in paragraph 27 (pg. 664)  held as under :

“27. ……….Therefore, assuming that he was a daily-rated  worker,  once  he  has  rendered  continuous  uninterrupted  service for a period of one year or more, within the meaning  of Section 25-F of the Act and his service is terminated for  any reason whatsoever and the case does not fall in any of  the excepted categories, notwithstanding the fact that Rule  2505 would be attracted, it would have to be read subject to  the  provisions  of  the  Act.  Accordingly  the  termination  of  service in this case would constitute retrenchment and for  

13  (1972) 4 SCC 205 5

Page 6

not complying with pre-conditions to valid retrenchment, the  order of termination would be illegal and invalid.”

11. What has been held by this Court in L. Robert  

D’Souza1 is that Section 25-F of the ID Act is applicable to a daily-rated  

worker.  We do not think that there is any dispute on this proposition.  

12. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and  

Others14, this Court in paragraph 54 (pg. 120) of the Report held as under:

“54. Mr. Phadke, as noticed hereinbefore, has referred to a  large number of decisions for demonstrating that this Court  had directed reinstatement even if the workmen concerned  were  daily-wagers  or  were  employed  intermittently.  No  proposition  of  law  was  laid  down  in  the  aforementioned  judgments. The said judgments of this Court, moreover, do  not lay down any principle having universal  application so  that the Tribunals, or for that matter the High Court, or this  Court,  may  feel  compelled  to  direct  reinstatement  with  continuity  of  service  and  back  wages.  The  Tribunal  has  some discretion in this matter. Grant of relief must depend  on  the  fact  situation  obtaining  in  a  particular  case.  The  industrial  adjudicator cannot be held to be bound to grant  some relief only because it will be lawful to do so.”

13. In Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal Corpn.) v. State of U.P.   

and Others15,  this Court,  while dealing with the non-compliance with the  

provisions of Section 6-N (which is  pari materia to Section 25-F) of U.P.  

Industrial Disputes Act held that the grant of relief of reinstatement with full  

back  wages  and continuity  of  service  in  favour  of  retrenched workmen  

would not automatically follow or as a matter of course. Instead, this Court  

14  (2005) 5 SCC 100 15  (2006) 5 SCC 127

6

Page 7

modified the award of reinstatement with compensation of Rs. 30,000/- per  

workman.

14. In Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar16, this Court  

after having accepted the finding that there was violation of Section 25-F of  

the ID Act,  set  aside  the award of  reinstatement  with  back wages and  

directed the workman  to be paid monetary compensation in the sum of Rs.  

50,000/-.

15. In  Mamni4  ,  this  Court  modified  the award  of  reinstatement  

passed by the Labour Court, though  the termination of the workman was in  

violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act, by directing that the workman should  

be compensated by payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

16. In  Regional  Manager,  SBI v.  Mahatma Mishra17,  this  Court  

observed that it  was one thing to say that services of  a workman were  

terminated in violation of mandatory provisions of law but it  was another  

thing to say that  relief  of  reinstatement in  service  with full  back wages  

would be granted automatically.

17. In  Haryana  Urban  Development  Authority v.  Om Pal18,  this  

Court in paragraphs 7 and 8 (pg. 745) of the Report held as under :  

“7. Moreover, it is also now well settled that despite a wide  discretionary  power  conferred  upon  the  Industrial  Courts  under  Section  11-A  of  the  1947  Act,  the  relief  of  reinstatement with  full  back wages should  not  be granted  automatically only because it would be lawful to do so. Grant  of relief would depend on the fact situation obtaining in each  case.  It  will  depend  upon  several  factors,  one  of  which  

16  (2006) 5 SCC 173 17  (2006) 13 SCC 727 18  (2007) 5 SCC 742

7

Page 8

would  be  as  to  whether  the  recruitment  was  effected  in  terms of the statutory provisions operating in the field, if any.

8.  The respondent worked for a very short period.  He only  worked, as noticed hereinbefore, in 1994-95. The Industrial   Tribunal-cum-Labour  Court,  therefore,  in  our  opinion  committed an illegality, while passing an award in the year  2003, directing the reinstatement of the respondent with full   back  wages.  Although  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  respondent  was not  entitled  to  any relief,  whatsoever,  we  direct the appellant to pay him a sum of Rs. 25,000.”

18. In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C.Joshi19,   

the  Court  was  concerned  with  a  daily  wager  who  had  worked  with  

Uttaranchal  Forest  Development  Corporation  from  01.08.1989  to  

24.11.1991 and whose services were held to be terminated in violation of  

Section 6-N of  the U.P.  Industrial  Disputes  Act.  The Labour  Court  had  

directed the reinstatement of the workman with 50 per cent back wages  

from the date the industrial dispute was raised. Setting aside the order of  

reinstatement and back wages, this Court awarded compensation in a sum  

of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the workman keeping in view the nature and  

period  of  service  rendered by  the workman and the fact  that  industrial  

dispute was raised after six years.

19. In Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban 20 , this Court  

upheld  the order  of  the Industrial  Court  passed in  its  jurisdiction under  

Section  11A  of  the  ID  Act  awarding  compensation  and  set  aside  the  

judgment  of  the Single  Judge and the Division  Bench that  ordered  the  

19  (2007) 9 SCC 353 20  (2007) 9 SCC 748

8

Page 9

reinstatement of the workman with full back wages. The Court in paragraph  

12 (pg. 755) of the Report held as under:

“12.  In  this  case,  the  Industrial  Court  exercised  its  discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial   Disputes Act. It merely directed the amount of compensation  to which the respondent was entitled had the provisions of  Section  25-F  been  complied  with  should  be  sufficient  to  meet the ends of  justice.  We  are  not  suggesting  that  the  High Court could not interfere with the said order,  but the  discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the Industrial Court, in  our opinion, should have been taken into consideration for  determination  of  the  question  as to  what  relief  should  be  granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.  Each case is required to be dealt with in the fact situation  obtaining therein.”

20. In  Mahboob  Deepak5  ,  this  Court  stated  that  an  order  of  

retrenchment  passed  in  violation  of  Section  6-N  of  the  U.P.  Industrial  

Disputes Act may be set aside but an order of reinstatement should not  

however be automatically passed.  The Court observed in paragraphs 11  

and 12 (pg. 578) of the Report as follows:-

“11. The High Court, on the other hand, did not consider the  effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 6-N  of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  The appellant was  entitled to compensation, notice and notice pay.  

12.  It  is now well  settled by a catena of decisions of this  Court that in a situation of this nature instead and in place of  directing reinstatement with full  back wages, the workmen  should be granted adequate monetary compensation. (See  M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban20).”

9

Page 10

21. In Telecom District Manager and others v. Keshab Deb21,  this  

Court said that even if the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act had not  

been complied with, the workman was only entitled to  just compensation.

22. In Talwara Co-operative Credit and Service Society Limited v.  

Sushil Kumar22,  this Court in paragraph 8 (pg. 489) of the Report held as  

under :

“8.  Grant  of  a  relief  of  reinstatement,  it  is  trite,  is  not  automatic. Grant of back wages is also not automatic. The  Industrial Courts while exercising their power under Section  11-A of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  are  required  to  strike a balance in a situation of this  nature. For the said  purpose, certain relevant factors, as for example, nature of  service, the mode and manner of recruitment viz.  whether  the  appointment  had  been  made  in  accordance  with  the  statutory  rules  so  far  as  a  public  sector  undertaking  is  concerned, etc., should be taken into consideration.”

23. In Jagbir Singh6 ,  this Court, speaking through one of us (R.M.  

Lodha, J.) while dealing with the question of consequential  relief  arising  

from the facts quite similar to the present case, ordered compensation of  

Rs.  50,000/-  to  be  paid  by  the  employer  to  the  workman  instead  of  

reinstatement.   In paragraph 14 (pg.335) of the Report, this Court held as  

under :  

“14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in  recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of  retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although  may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,  however,  be  automatically  passed.  The  award  of  reinstatement  with  full  back  wages  in  a  case  where  the  workman  has  completed  240  days  of  work  in  a  year  preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers  

21  (2008) 8 SCC 402 22  (2008) 9 SCC 486

10

Page 11

has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead  compensation  has  been  awarded.  This  Court  has  distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a  post and a permanent employee.”

24. In Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Laxmi Kant Gupta23,   

this Court stated,  “…. now there is no such principle that for an illegal   

termination of service the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages,  

and instead the Labour Court can award compensation”.

25. In Santosh Kumar Seal7, while dealing with a case of workmen  

who were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and had hardly  

worked for two or three years, this Court speaking through one of us (R.M.  

Lodha, J.) held that reinstatement with back wages could not be said to be  

justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of  

justice.  It  was  held  that  compensation  of  Rs.  40,000/-  to  each  of  the  

workmen would meet the ends of justice.    

26. From the long line of cases indicated above, it  can be said  

without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute  

proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is  

entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of this  

Court that there could be circumstance(s) in a case which may make it  

inexpedient  to  order  reinstatement.   Therefore,  the  normal  rule  that  

dismissed  employee  is  entitled  to  reinstatement  in  cases  of  wrongful  

dismissal has been held to be not without exception.  Insofar as wrongful  

23  (2009) 16 SCC 562 11

Page 12

termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this Court has laid down  

that consequential relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner  

and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service.  

Where the length of engagement as daily wager has not been long, award  

of  reinstatement  should  not  follow  and  rather  compensation  should  be  

directed to be paid.  A distinction has been drawn between a daily wager  

and  an  employee  holding  the  regular  post  for  the  purposes  of  

consequential relief.   

27. We shall now consider two decisions of this Court in Harjinder  

Singh2 and Devinder Singh3 upon which heavy reliance has been placed by  

the learned counsel for the respondent.  In Harjinder Singh2 , this Court did  

interfere with the order of the High Court which awarded compensation to  

the  workman  by  modifying  the  award  of  reinstatement  passed  by  the  

Labour Court. However, on close scrutiny of facts it transpires that that was  

a  case  where  a  workman  was  initially  employed  by  Punjab  State  

Warehousing Corporation as work-charge motor mate but after few months  

he  was  appointed  as  work  munshi  in  the  regular  pay-scale  for  three  

months.  His service was extended from time to time and later on by one  

month’s  notice  given  by  the  Managing  Director  of  the  Corporation  his  

service  was  brought  to  end  on  05.07.1988.  The  workman  challenged  

the implementation of the notice in a writ petition and by an interim order  

the High Court stayed the implementation of that notice but later on the writ  

petition was withdrawn with liberty  to the workman to  avail  his  remedy  

12

Page 13

under  the  ID  Act.  After  two  months,  the  Managing  Director  of  the  

Corporation  issued  notice  dated  26.11.1992  for  retrenchment  of  the  

workman  along  with  few  others  by  giving  them  one  month’s  pay  and  

allowances in lieu of notice as per the requirement of Section 25-F(a) of the  

ID Act. On industrial dispute being raised, the Labour Court found that there  

was compliance of Section 25-F but it was found that the  termination was  

violative  of  Section 25-G of  the ID  Act  and,  accordingly,  Labour  Court  

passed an award for reinstatement of the workman with 50 per cent back  

wages.    The Single Judge of that High Court did not approve the award of  

reinstatement on the premise that the initial  appointment of the workman  

was not in consonance with the statutory regulations and Articles 14 and 16  

of the Constitution and accordingly, substituted the award of reinstatement  

with 50 per cent back wages by directing  that the workman shall be paid a  

sum of Rs. 87,582/- by way of compensation. It is this order of the Single  

Judge that  was set  aside  by  this  Court  and order  of  the Labour  Court  

restored. We  are afraid the facts in  Harjinder Singh2   are quite distinct.  

That was not a case of a daily-rated worker.  It was  held that Single Judge  

was wrong in entertaining an unfounded plea that workman was employed  

in violation of Articles 14 and 16. Harjinder Singh2 turned on its own facts  

and is not applicable to the facts of the present case at all.

28. In  Devinder Singh3  , the workman was engaged by Municipal  

Council,  Sanaur on 01.08.1994 for doing the work of clerical  nature. He  

continued  in  service  till  29.09.1996.  His  service  was  discontinued  with  

13

Page 14

effect from 30.09.1996 in violation of Section 25-F of ID Act.  On industrial  

dispute  being  referred  for  adjudication,  the  Labour  Court  held  that  the  

workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding  

the  termination  of  his  service  and  his  service  was  terminated  without  

complying with the provisions of Section 25-F. Accordingly, Labour Court  

passed an award for reinstatement of the workman but without back wages.  

Upon challenge being laid to the award of the Labour Court, the Division  

Bench set aside the order of the Labour Court by holding that Labour Court  

should  not  have  ordered  reinstatement  of  the  workman  because  his  

appointment was contrary to the Recruitment Rules and Articles 14 and 16  

of the Constitution.   In the appeal before  this Court from the order of the  

Division Bench, this Court held that the High Court had neither found any  

jurisdictional infirmity in the award of the Labour Court nor it came to the  

conclusion that the award was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the  

face of the record and notwithstanding these  the High Court set aside the  

direction given by the Labour Court for reinstatement of the workman by  

assuming that his initial appointment was contrary to law. The approach of  

the  High  Court  was  found  to  be  erroneous  by  this  Court.  This  Court,  

accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court and restored the award of  

the Labour Court. In  Devinder Singh3 ,  the Court had not dealt  with the  

question  about  the  consequential  relief  to  be  granted  to  the  workman  

whose termination was held to be illegal being in violation of Section 25-F.

14

Page 15

29. In our view, Harjinder Singh2 and Devinder Singh3   do not lay  

down  the  proposition  that  in  all  cases  of  wrongful  termination,  

reinstatement must follow.  This Court found in those cases that judicial  

discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court  

on wrong assumption that  the initial  employment  of  the employee  was  

illegal.  As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily  

wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases  

has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief  

and rather award of compensation  in such cases would be in consonance  

with the demand of justice.   Before exercising its judicial  discretion, the  

Labour Court has to keep in view all  relevant factors, including the mode  

and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the  

ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising  

the industrial  dispute  before  grant  of  relief  in  an industrial  dispute.  30.

We may also refer to a recent decision of this Court in Bharat  

Sanchar  Nigam  Limited v. Man  Singh24.  That  was  a  case  where  the  

workmen, who were daily wagers during the year 1984-85, were terminated  

without following Section 25-F. The industrial dispute was raised after five  

years and although the Labour Court  had awarded reinstatement of  the  

workmen which was not interfered by the High Court, this Court set aside  

the  award  of  reinstatement  and  ordered  payment  of  compensation.  In  

paragraphs 4 and 5 (pg.559) of the Report this Court held as under:

24  (2012) 1 SCC 558  15

Page 16

“4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid down  that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of  Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside  but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This  Court  has distinguished between a daily  wager who does  not hold a post and a permanent employee.

5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact  that  the  respondent  workmen  were  engaged  as  “daily  wagers”  and  they  had  merely  worked  for  more  than  240  days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot  be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation  would meet the ends of justice.”

31. In light of the above legal  position and having regard to the  

facts  of  the present  case,  namely,  the workman was engaged as daily  

wager  on  01.03.1991  and  he  worked  hardly  for  eight  months  from  

01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise  

its judicial discretion appropriately.  The judicial discretion exercised by the  

Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity.  The Single Judge as well as  

the Division Bench of  the High Court  also  erred in  not  considering the  

above aspect at all.  The award dated 28.06.2001 directing reinstatement  

of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in the  

facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be set  

aside and is set aside.  In our view,  compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by the  

appellant  to  the  respondent  shall  meet  the  ends  of  justice.  We  order  

accordingly.  Such payment  shall  be  made to  the respondent  within  six  

weeks from today failing which the same will  carry interest @ 9 per cent  

per annum.  

16

Page 17

32. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent with no order  

as to costs.

    …………………….J.               (R.M. Lodha)

       …………….…………………….J.          (Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)

NEW DELHI JANUARY 31, 2013.

17