'Delay In Deciding Reference Cannot Be Grounds To Deny Relief': Bombay High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Workers Terminated In 1995

The Bombay High Court has held that delay in adjudication of an industrial reference cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny just relief to workmen whose services were illegally terminated. The Court observed that when the delay is not attributable to the workmen and the termination is found to be in violation of law, reinstatement is the appropriate remedy.

A bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav was hearing writ petitions filed by the employer and trade union, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in 2019. The case concerned the termination of workmen from a hospital in 1995 when they sought permanency. The Industrial Tribunal had concluded that the termination of the workers was illegal, but did not reinstate them due to the lapse of time. Instead, it awarded the workers a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh.

The Court noted that the learned Tribunal considered that the Reference itself remained pending for more than 14 years after the alleged termination in the year 1995, and the fact that the condition of the Hospital run by the Corporation is not good. On account of these factors, it granted lumpsum compensation of Rs 1 lakh to each worker in lieu of reinstatement.

The Court observed that mere pendency of the reference cannot be a reason for awarding a lumpsum payment, instead of reinstatement:

“… merely because the Reference remained pending before the Industrial Tribunal for almost 14 years, the learned Tribunal has held that much water has flown below the pool and therefore considering this situation lumpsum compensation is awarded… such a conclusion is not warranted in law.”

The Court emphasised that the pendency of the reference cannot be held against the workmen. It said that the delay in deciding the Reference cannot be held in the way of the grant of appropriate relief to which the workmen are entitled to in law.

“… justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done. The conclusion in the present case has been arrived at only because of the delay in deciding the Reference and nothing else. There is no other reason whatsoever to preclude the Court to deviate from granting appropriate relief,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were partly allowed, and the award was modified to the extent of directing the reinstatement of workers. However, the court held that the workers shall not be entitled to any back-wages or continuity in service but shall be entitled to or retirement benefits in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Sarva Shramik Sangh v. The Commissioner & Ors. [Writ Petition NO. 2644 OF 2020]

Click Here To Read/Download Order