Termination Without Section 25F Notice; Monetary Compensation Adequate When Employee Found In Similar Employment: Bombay HC

Background

The case concerned Sharad Madhavrao Mohitkar, who worked as a casual laborer for the Telecom (R.E.) Project from July 1985 to June 1988. His services were allegedly terminated orally without following the mandatory procedures under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer contended that Mohitkar had willfully absented himself from work since August 1, 1988. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) found the termination illegal but awarded compensation instead of reinstatement, leading to the present petition.

Arguments

The petitioner relied on Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel v. Municipal Council, Narkhed (Civil Appeal No. 6188 of 2019) to argue that reinstatement is the normal rule when termination is found illegal. He also cited Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer [(2010) 5 SCC 497], where the Supreme Court held that employees whose services are terminated without complying with Section 25F are entitled to continue in employment. On the other hand, the respondent emphasized that the petitioner had admitted in cross-examination to working as a casual laborer in the railway's electrification division from January 1987 to July 1988. They also pointed out that his initial appointment wasn't through proper channels, as his name wasn't sponsored by the employment exchange, and he never received a formal appointment letter.

The Decision

Firstly, the court analyzed the evolution of jurisprudence regarding remedies for illegal termination. It noted that while earlier views favored automatic reinstatement with full back wages for illegal terminations, recent Supreme Court judgments have consistently held that such relief isn't automatic and may be inappropriate in certain situations, even when termination procedures are violated. Secondly, while examining the specific circumstances of the case, the court found relevant that the petitioner was employed in similar work after his termination, indicating he was in “gainful employment.” The court also considered that his initial appointment wasn't in accordance with proper rules and regulations, as he wasn't sponsored by the employment exchange and never received a formal appointment letter.

Thirdly, the court addressed the precedents cited by the petitioner. While acknowledging cases like Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel (Civil Appeal No. 6188 of 2019), which held reinstatement as a normal rule, the court emphasized that these judgments didn't establish reinstatement as the only available remedy. The court particularly referenced Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer PWD [(2021) 14 SCC 815], where the Supreme Court had approved compensation in lieu of reinstatement while merely enhancing the amount.

Furthermore, the court relied on Incharge Officer v. Shanker Shetty [2010 (8) Scale 583] and Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board [(2009) 15 SCC 327], which established that compensation instead of reinstatement could meet the ends of justice in appropriate cases. The court concluded that the Labour Court's decision to award Rs. 30,000 as compensation instead of reinstatement was based on well-settled principles and represented a reasonable view of the matter. Finding no grounds for interference in its writ jurisdiction, the court dismissed the petition with costs.

Decided on: 22-10-2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 568

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. A. Kalbande

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. U. R. Tanna (instructed by Dr. (Mr.) R. S. Sundaram)

Click Here To Read/Download The Order