Judgment:
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. The parties agreed for disposal of this writ petition at this stage.
2. Heard the parties at length.
3. This writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 22.7.2005, passed in Reference Case No. 94 of 1993, by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. By order-dated 12.11.1993, the following dispute was referred for adjudication.
Whether the action of the District Manager, F.C.I., Ranchi, is justified in terminating the services of Shri Sadhan Kumar Das, Electrician, w.e.f. 1.12.85 without paying him notice pay in lieu of one month notice and retrenchment compensation though he has worked more than 240 days of service in a year prior to date of termination? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?
4. The case of respondent No. 2 inter alia was that he was a casual electrician but from 1.1.1986, he was stopped from attending his duty without compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. He claimed for reinstatement with full back wages in time scale and also for regularization of service.
5. The case of the Management, inter alia, was that when ever required, respondent No. 2 was engaged for electrical repairing work on part time basis, between October, 1984 to December, 1985. In 1984, such engagements was for 19 days in October, 20 days in November, 21 days in December; in 1985, 20 days in January, 12 days in February, and then 18 days in December, where after, as there was no work for him, he was disengaged. He did not complete 240 days in the year continuously, preceding his stoppage of work.
6. The Tribunal found that respondent No. 2 worked for 193 days between January 1985 to December, 1985. Relying on AIR 1986 S.C. 456, it added the second Saturdays, Sundays and Gazetted holidays and came to a finding that thus the total attendance comes to 273 days. The Tribunal did not consider the claim of regularization being beyond the reference. However, it held that there was violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. It directed the petitioner to reinstate him in the same post as he was working on 31.12.1985 along with full back wages.
7. Mr. Bakshi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner is a Government Corporation and there is nothing to show that respondent No. 2 was disengaged in a mala fide manner, rather he was disengaged as there was no work for him after December, 1985. Therefore, his reinstatement and that too after twenty years will not be proper. He further submitted that respondent No. 2 has not pleaded/ brought on record anything to show that he was not gainfully employed after his disengagement in December, 1985 till today. He further submitted that taking note of similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited v. Mamni by the judgement dated 2.5.2006, passed in Appeal ( Civil) 2410 of 2006 ( Arising out of Sip (Civil) No. 14929 of 2004) held that the relief of reinstatment with full back wages is not to be given automatically and each case must be considered on its own merit. In the said case, the workman had not worked since 1992. The Supreme Court directed to pay compensation instead of reinstatement with back wages. He further relied on : (1997)11SCC396 ( Rattan Singh v. Union of India) and submitted that in that case also in view of the fact that 22 years had passed after termination, reinstatement was refused. However, compensation was awarded instead of reinstatement and back wages.
8. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, appearing for respondent No. 2, relied on 2005 1 LLJ 552 (Employers, Management of Central P & D Inst. Ltd. v. Union of India) and submitted that Supreme Court observed that in normal course it would not have interfered with the order of reinstatement. In reply to this, Mr. Bakshi, submitted that before the said observation, in paragraph 7, the Supreme Court held that ft is not always mandatory for the Courts to order reinstatement in cases where there has been violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, which can be substituted for good reasons by awarding compensation.
9. In view of the facts, circumstances and the judgments noted above, in my opinion, it would not be proper to direct the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 2, who was admittedly a casual electrician and was disengaged more than 20 years back. Moreover, there was/is noting on the record to show that respondent No. 2 was not gainfully employed during the last 20 years. However, the award is modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement with full back wages, petitioner will pay to respondent No. 2 a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand).
10. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.