1. With the consent of parties the matter is heard finally.

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the award dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior whereby, the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service without back wages.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are as under:-

          3.1 The petitioner is a private education institution which is receiving block grant from the State Government. The respondent was temporarily engaged as a daily wager (Chowkidar) with the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.1993 and his services were dispensed with on 31.03.2000.

          3.2 On the reference filed by the respondent, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court on adjudicating the dispute, held the termination of the respondent to be illegal and therefore, directed for his reinstatement without back wages vide award dated 30.11.2015, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court had erred in facts as well as law in allowing the claim filed by the respondent. He submits that since the petitioner-institution was receiving block grant from the State Government, therefore, in terms of the directions issued by the State Government, the services of the respondent were dispensed with. The reference made by the respondent without impleading the State Government was itself not maintainable. That apart, he also submits that the labour Court had erred in law in holding that the respondent had worked for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination and that no retrenchment compensation in accordance with law was extended to him.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that looking to the fact that the respondent was a daily wager and was not working against any sanctioned post, then, even if the termination was found to be illegal by the Labour Court, then, the adequate relief which ought to have been granted by the Labour Court was compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned award but admits that the respondent-workman had by now attained the age of superannuation.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. So far as the finding given by the Court below that the termination of the respondent was illegal is concerned, the petitioner being the employer was in possession of every document to show that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days. Admittedly, the petitioner did not bring any evidence on record to rebut the claim of the respondent that he has worked for more than 240 days. It is well established principle of law that if a party is in possession of best evidence and fails to produce the same, then an adverse inference can be drawn. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below did not commit any mistake by holding that the respondent has worked for more than 240 days.

9. So far as the question of reinstatement is concerned, the law as laid down by the Supreme Court is required to be seen. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (supra) reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 has held as under:-

          "33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious."

10. In the matter of Jayant Vasantrao Hiwarkar Vs. Anoop Ganaptrao Bobde reported in (2017)11 SCC 244, the Supreme Court has upheld the grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 190 has held as under:-

          ''19. The following passages from the said judgment would reflect the earlier decisions of this Court on the question of reinstatement: (BSNL case, SCC pp. 187-88, paras 29-30)

          "29. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In BSNL v. Man Singh, this Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right. In Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty, it was held that those cases where the workman had worked on daily-wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2 to 3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

          30. In this judgment of Shankar Shetty, this trend was reiterated by referring to various judgments, as is clear from the following discussion: (SCC pp. 127-28, paras 2-4)

          '2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a dailywager has been brought to an end in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act")? The course of thedecisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question.

          3. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, delivering the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi, State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban, Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, GDA v. Ashok Kumar and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case, SCC pp. 330 & 335, paras 7 & 14)

          "7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

          ***

          14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily-wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguishedbetween a daily-wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee."

          4. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein this Court stated: (SCC p. 777, para 11) 11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as dailywagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice.'"

          ****

          21. We make it clear that reference to Umadevi, in the aforesaid discussion is in a situation where the dispute referred pertained to termination alone. Going by the principles carved out above, had it been a case where the issue is limited only to the validity of termination, Appellant 1 would not be entitled to reinstatement...........''

12. The Supreme Court in the matter of O.P. Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited & Others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 337 has held as under :-

          "6. Time is now ripe to turn to the next question as to whether it is obligatory to direct reinstatement when the concerned regulation is found to be void. In the sphere of employer employee relations in public sector undertakings, to which Article 12 of the Constitution of India is attracted, it cannot be posited that reinstatement must invariably follow as a consequence of holding that an order of termination of service of an employee is void. No doubt in regard to "blue collar" workmen and "white collar" employees other than those belonging to the managerial or similar high level cadre, reinstatement would be a rule, and compensation in lieu thereof a rare exception. Insofar as the high level managerial cadre is concerned, the matter deserves to be viewed from an altogether different perspective -- a larger perspective which must take into account the demands of National Interest and the resultant compulsion to ensure the success of the public sector in its competitive co-existence with the private sector. The public sector can never fulfil its life aim or successfully vie with the private sector if it is not managed by capable and efficient personnel with unimpeachable integrity and the requisite vision, who enjoy the fullest confidence of the "policy-makers" of such undertakings. Then and then only can the public sector undertaking achieve the goals of

          (1) maximum production for the benefit of the community,

          (2) social justice for workers, consumers and the people, and

          (3) reasonable return on the public funds invested in the undertaking.

          7. It is in public interest that such undertakings or their Boards of Directors are not compelled and obliged to entrust their managements to personnel in whom, on reasonable grounds, they have no trust or faith and with whom they are in a bona fide manner unable to function harmoniously as a team working arm-in-arm with success in the aforesaid three- dimensional sense as their common goal. These factors have to be taken into account by the court at the time of passing the consequential order, for the court has full discretion in the matter of granting relief, and the court can sculpture the relief to suit the needs of the matter at hand. The court, if satisfied that ends of justice so demand, can certainly direct that the employer shall have the option not to reinstate provided the employer pays reasonable compensation as indicated by the court."

13. Looking to the nature of employment of the respondent i.e. a daily wager not working against any sanctioned post, even though the termination of the respondent was held to be illegal, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below ought to have directed for payment of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

14. Similar view has been also taken by the Apex Court in the case o f Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank vs. Panchamlal Yadav (Civil Appeal No.9792/2010) decided on 13.07.2021.

15. Furthermore, the respondent has remained out of service since 31.03.2000. As on the date of filing of the present petition, a period of approximately 16 years had elapsed from the date of disengagement and as of today, almost 25 years have gone by. The Labour Court has also not awarded any back wages and the respondent has since attained the age of superannuation. In these circumstances, reinstatement has lost its relevance.

16. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 30.11.2015 passed by Labour Court No.1, Gwalior in COC-38/A/ID Act/2011 (Reference) is modified to the extent that, in place of reinstatement, the respondent- workman shall be paid lump-sum monetary compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only). Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, including the nature and duration of engagement, the long lapse of time, the fact that the respondent has remained out of service since 31.03.2000 and has since attained the age of superannuation and further that the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied with during the pendency of the petition, this Court is satisfied that award of monetary compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.

17. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the petitioner-institution to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.

18. Pending applications, if any, stand closed.