Section 25-F breach does not automatically require reinstatement; compensation may be the proper relief depending on facts.

Termination in breach of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not automatically require reinstatement. Relief depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and monetary compensation may be a more appropriate remedy where long lapse of time, intermittent daily-wage service, and similar precedents make reinstatement unjustified. Applying that approach, the Court held that reinstatement was not warranted and that compensation was the proper relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing reinstatement of daily-wage employees whose termination was found to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was justified, or whether monetary compensation should be awarded instead.

Analysis: A termination in breach of Section 25-F does not invariably lead to reinstatement as a matter of course. Relief depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and in appropriate cases monetary compensation may better serve the ends of justice. Here, the respondents had worked intermittently as daily wagers for varying periods, the terminations had taken place long back, and the precedents relied upon supported substitution of compensation for reinstatement in similar situations.

Conclusion: The order of reinstatement was not justified. Compensation, not reinstatement, was the proper relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of termination in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reinstatement is not automatic and may be replaced by monetary compensation where the facts and circumstances so warrant.

---