Shri Dharmendra Jain, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in directing payment of lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement. Learned counsel submitted that the same Labour Court presided by the same Judicial officer had in the case of retrenchment of a fellow workman of the appellant Sitaram Yadav, in LCR No.395/2006 (Annexure-6) who too like the appellant worked for hardly 240 days was removed from service in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, instead of reinstatement, granted him lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000 only. There was therefore no justification for the learned Labour Court to have directed reinstatement of the appellant-workman. Moreover, learned counsel argued that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court about the breach of Section 25G is perverse as it would be evident from para 16 of the award impugned before the learned Single Judge that the appellant-workman referred to persons Sita Ram, Kamal Kant, Ram Khiladi, Om Prakash, Shiv Charan etc. as his juniors, who according to him were continued in service when his services were terminated. However, Sita Ram Yadav was the workman, whose services had already been terminated on 30th August, 1995 i.e. one year prior to the termination of the services by the workman. The Labour Court has passed the above referred to award in the case of Sita Ram Yadav on 14.12.2016.
