Section 25F breach does not automatically require reinstatement; compensation may replace full back wages for daily wagers.

A retrenchment of a daily wager in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not automatically require reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Industrial adjudication is discretionary and must depend on the facts, including the nature of appointment, length and manner of service, and the ends of justice. In short-term daily-wage engagements, compensation may be a more appropriate remedy than reinstatement. Applying that approach, the Court upheld the setting aside of reinstatement and back wages, but held that compensation should have been awarded in lieu of those reliefs.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on termination of a daily wager in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the proper relief was reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages or compensation instead.

Analysis: The Court noted the settled shift in approach that a retrenchment in breach of Section 25F does not automatically compel reinstatement with full back wages. Relief under industrial adjudication is discretionary and must turn on the facts of each case, including the nature of appointment, the length and manner of service, and the broader ends of justice. The Court approved the line of decisions holding that in cases involving short-term daily-wage engagement, compensation may be more appropriate than reinstatement. It further held that although the High Court was justified in setting aside reinstatement and back wages, it ought to have granted compensation in lieu of that relief.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to reinstatement with full back wages, but was entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 instead.

---