Illegal retrenchment of daily wagers may justify compensation instead of reinstatement with back wages when justice so requires.

Illegal retrenchment of daily wagers does not automatically require reinstatement with full back wages. Where the workmen had served only briefly as casual labourers and the dispute arose long after termination, the Court treated monetary compensation as the more appropriate relief and held that restoration of employment after many years may not serve the ends of justice. On those facts, reinstatement with back wages was found excessive and was replaced by lump sum compensation to each workman.

---

---

Issues: Whether workmen who had been engaged as daily wagers and whose services were terminated in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were entitled to reinstatement with back wages, or whether monetary compensation would be the appropriate relief.

Analysis: The workmen had worked only for a short period as casual labourers and the dispute arose long after the cessation of their employment. The Court applied the settled principle that reinstatement with full back wages is not an automatic consequence of illegal termination or retrenchment in violation of the prescribed procedure. In cases involving daily wagers and stale terminations, compensation may better meet the ends of justice than restoring employment after many years. On the facts found, the award of reinstatement and back wages was considered excessive, and a lump sum compensation was fixed instead.

Conclusion: The relief of reinstatement with back wages was declined and substituted by monetary compensation of Rs. 40,000 to each workman.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of illegal retrenchment of daily wagers, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and monetary compensation may be awarded in place of reinstatement where that better serves the ends of justice.

---