The Delhi High Court recently observed that cases involving violations of labour norms under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the relief of granting reinstatement to work with back wages is not automatic [Punjab National Bank v. Manoj Kumar].
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh explained that in some cases, compensation can be paid instead of ordering reinstatement to service.
"Reinstatement is an act which aims to rectify an act of wrongful termination by restoring an employee to their previous position on the same terms and conditions of their appointment. However, the settled position of law is clear with regard to the said relief as the Courts in a catena of judgments, have repeatedly held that the ordinary principles of reinstatement do not automatically apply in all cases ... in the recent times as the Courts have consistently held that the said relief is not automatic and the workman shall be fairly compensated in lieu of the relief of reinstatement," the Court observed.
The Court made the observation while reversing an order passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (tribunal) in case concerning a Manoj Kumar, who had been engaged as a sweeper on an ad-hoc basis from 1993-1997 by the public sector bank, Punjab National Bank (PNB).
After PNB terminated his services in 1998, Kumar filed a labour case before the tribunal seeking the regularisation of his service and his reinstatement with back wages.
The tribunal partly allowed the Kumar's plea. It found that his termination from service was illegal and that he was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. This reinstatement was challenged by PNB before the Delhi High Court.
However, the tribunal also denied Kumar’s plea for the regularization of services. This decision was challenged by Kumar before the High Court.
Both matters were decided by the High Court in a common order passed on October 16.
On the issue of reinstatement, the Court agreed that the termination of Kumar's services was illegal. However, it concluded that he need be reinstated back to service and that adequate monetary compensation may be given instead.
Accordingly, the Court ordered PNB to pay₹ 2.5 lakhs to Manoj Kumar as compensation.
On the point of regularisation, the Court held that to regularise a worker's appointment to a government job, there must be a permanent post against which the workman had been appointed through a proper recruitment process.
In this case, however, Kumar was found to have been irregularly appointed. Therefore, the Court concluded that he was not entitled to a regularisation of his services.
“A daily wage worker cannot claim the right to be regularized, unless a formal policy of regularization in the concerned organization exists, as the same will amount to back door entry which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the Court held.
Since no formal appointment letter was issued to Kumar, the Court rejected his claim for regularisation of service.
“A temporary worker cannot seek regularization and permanence in a Govt. department/public post merely by work-time line and when the initial engagement was not as per formal competitive procedure,” the Court said.
The Court also reasoned that it was not inclined to interfere on this aspect with the tribunal's order given the limited scope of its jurisdiction in such matters.
"The scope of intervention of this Court in modifying the factual findings of the Labor Court is limited. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal in the instant case dealt with the issue of regularization of the workman after meticulously examining all the evidence placed before it," the High Court said.
Advocate Swarnil Dey appeared for PNB. Advocates Barun Kumar Sinha, Pratibha Sinha and Sneh Vardhan appeared for Manoj Kumar.
[Read Judgment]