AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On account of suspension of one Ram Chandra, a
permanent employee the appellant was given ad hoc appointment
on 31/05/1985. His services were disengaged on 01/08/1986.
On account of non-compliance of Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 i.e. retrenchment compensation not
being paid, the award in favour of the appellant was passed for his
reinstatement with 1/4th back wages.
The award has been set-aside by the learned Single
Judge awarding Rs.15,000/- as compensation.
Since the appellant was given employment upon
suspension of an employee and he had worked for a little over one (2 of 2) [SAW-55/2007]
year, we noted that in absence of the sanctioned post
reinstatement under the University ought not to have been
directed. The wrong was non payment of retrenchment
compensation and thus the lump sum amount directed to be paid
by the learned Single Judge is the correct remedy.
Pertaining to casual labour/daily wager, in the decision
reported as (2016) 1 SCC 521, Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow
University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhilesh Kumar
Khare & Anr., the Supreme Court took the view that the question
of reinstatement does not arise for the reason a casual labourer or
a daily wager does not render service under a sanctioned post.
The same judgment has considered various other
judgments where the workmen had worked for between 2 to 3
years as daily wagers. On account of retrenchment compensation
not being paid the Court held that neither reinstatement nor back
wages should be ordered. Compensation would suffice.
The writ appeal is dismissed.
No costs.