Reinstatement for illegal retrenchment is not automatic for daily wagers; monetary compensation may be the proper relief.

Daily-wage workmen whose services were terminated without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were held not entitled to automatic reinstatement merely because they had worked for more than 240 days. The Court reiterated that, especially for daily wagers who do not hold a regular post, violation of retrenchment procedure does not necessarily require reinstatement, and monetary compensation may better serve the ends of justice. On the facts noted, reinstatement was set aside and compensation was treated as the proper relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether reinstatement was justified in respect of daily-wage workmen whose services were terminated without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, or whether monetary compensation was the appropriate relief.

Analysis: The workmen were engaged as daily wagers and had worked for more than 240 days. Their services were terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation. The Court noted the settled position that even where retrenchment is found to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, reinstatement is not an automatic consequence, particularly in the case of daily wagers who do not hold a regular post. In such circumstances, monetary compensation may better serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion: Reinstatement was set aside and monetary compensation was held to be the proper relief.

---