Compensation instead of reinstatement is permissible for a daily-wage worker where service was brief and delay was substantial.

Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act gives the Labour Court discretion to mould relief in cases of illegal termination, and reinstatement is not automatic. For a daily-wage worker with short service and a long lapse of time, compensation may be a proper substitute where the record does not show retention of juniors or any exceptional circumstance requiring reinstatement. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, interference is limited to awards that are perverse, illegal, or based on irrelevant considerations. On the stated facts, the compensation-based relief was held legally sustainable and the challenge to reinstatement failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Labour Court was justified in granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits instead of directing reinstatement of the workman.

Analysis: Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vests discretion in the Labour Court to mould relief in cases of discharge or dismissal, and reinstatement is not an invariable consequence of a finding of illegal termination. The settled line of authority recognises that, particularly in the case of a daily-wage or muster-roll employee, compensation may be more appropriate where the engagement was short, a long time has elapsed since cessation of service, and reinstatement would not serve the ends of industrial justice. The writ court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not act as an appellate court and interferes only where the award is perverse, illegal, or based on irrelevant considerations. On the facts, the workman was a daily wager employed for a brief period, there was a long lapse of time, and the record did not establish that juniors were retained or that the case fell within the exceptional category requiring reinstatement as the normal rule. The Court also held that the relief of compensation already granted by the Labour Court was consistent with the prevailing legal approach.

Conclusion: The award granting compensation instead of reinstatement was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The relief moulded by the Labour Court was held to be legally sustainable, and the writ petition challenging that relief failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of illegal termination of a daily-wage employee, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic, and the Labour Court may validly award compensation instead where the facts show short service, long delay, and no exceptional circumstance such as retention of juniors or unfair labour practice.

---