W.P.(C)/12/2001 of MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE Vs PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT on 5 August 2026

O R D E R

%

05.08.2026

1. The present petition is filed essentially challenging the award dated 11.11.1999 (hereafter ‘impugned award’) passed by the learned Labour Court in I.D. No. 668/1991.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent workmen had joined the petitioner Management in capacity of a ‘Helper’ in May, 1990. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.3 and 5 were terminated on 29.12.1990 while Respondent No.4 was terminated on 05.01.1991. Finding that services of the respondent workmen were terminated while workers purportedly junior to them were retained in service without recording any objective satisfaction for such action, the learned Labour Court granted relief of reinstatement with full back wages along with continuity of service to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

3. Having perused the petition, I see no reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned award qua illegal termination at this stage after more than 26 years have passed since the passing of the impugned award, especially considering that the respondent workmen were terminated more than 36 years back. The matter in the opinion of this Court has lost significance with efflux of time.

4. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the respondent workmen concededly have not worked for more than 7-8 months respectively and reinstatement was ordered vide impugned award almost 9 years after termination of the workmen. Ideally, monetary compensation ought to be ordered in lieu of reinstatement if much time has lapsed since termination so as to render reinstatement impractical. In such circumstances, considering the short spell of service of the workmen and lapse of time, the relief of reinstatement along with back wages appears to be ipso facto inequitable and interests of justice will be met if the same is substituted with monetary compensation.

5. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, pertinently, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court way back on 27.02.2004 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respondent workmen have received a substantial amount as subsistence allowance from the last more than 25 years without contributing in any manner to the work of the management. Though the said allowance is not inherently in the nature of compensation, it would be apposite in the peculiar facts of the present case if the amount so disbursed under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 be treated as part of the lump-sum compensation.

6. Further, considering the prolonged tribulations of litigation suffered by the respondent workmen, the amount lying deposited with the Registry of this Court in terms of order dated 04.01.2001 (whereby this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the back wages) is also directed to be released in their favour as compensation along with any accrued interest within a period of four weeks.

7. It is made clear that all questions of law are left open.

8. The relief in the impugned award is modified in the aforesaid terms and the present petition is disposed of. AMIT MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 5, 2026 “SS”