Case: STATE OF UTTARAKHAND  Vs. RAJ KUMAR

4. It is the case of the respondent (worker) that he worked as Beldar in the State PWD Department (Haridwar) as a daily wager for about a year from June 1986 to May 1987 and thereafter his services were brought to an end by the State without following the due procedure prescribed in law.      5. After almost 25 years of his alleged termination, the respondent filed a petition in the Labour Court,Haridwar (45/2014) questioning the legality and correctness of his termination.      6. By award 25.02.2015, the Labour Court awarded monetary compensation of Rs.30,000/-in full and final satisfaction to the respondent (workman) against his claim of reinstatement and all consequential benefits arising therefrom.      7. The respondent, therefore, felt aggrieved and filed writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. By impugned order, the High Court modified the award of the Labour Court and instead directed reinstatement of the respondent in the State services but without payment of any back wages to him which has given rise to filing of the present appeals by way of special leave by the State before this Court.

Reasoning:
10. In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by the two decisions of this Court rendered in the case ofBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177     andDistrict Development Officer and Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia (2018) 12 SCC 298.  Here is also a case where the respondent claimed to have worked as daily wager hardly for a period of one year or so in PWD of the State; Secondly, he had no right to claim regularization; Thirdly, he had no right to continue as daily wager and lastly, the dispute was raised by the respondent (workman) almost after 25 years of the alleged termination before the Labour Court.It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the case of the respondent would squarely fall in the category of cases discussed by this Court in Para 34 of the judgment rendered inBharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra).In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited?s case (supra).