Reinstatement replaced by compensation where casual service was brief, delay was long, and unemployment was not proved.

Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was found inappropriate where the workman had served only as a casual employee for a short period, significant time had passed since termination, and there was no evidence of continued unemployment. In these circumstances, the Labour Court could properly exercise its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to award lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement with consequential benefits. The reinstatement direction was therefore modified and compensation substituted in its place.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was justified, or whether lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement ought to have been awarded.

Analysis: The workman had been engaged only as a casual employee for a short period, and many years had elapsed since termination. In such circumstances, and in the absence of evidence that the workman remained unemployed after termination, reinstatement with consequential benefits was not considered appropriate. The Labour Court could have exercised power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to award compensation instead of reinstatement.

Conclusion: The direction of reinstatement was modified and compensation was substituted in its place.

---