HC Enhances Compensation for Illegal Termination to Rs. 6 Lakhs

Case Details: Rajkumar Harishankar Jaiswal vs. Mohit Synthetic Pvt. Ltd. [2026] 186 taxmann.com 400 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Amit Borkar, J.
• Vaibhav Jagdale for the Petitioner.
• Shailesh S. Pathak for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Petitioner-workman was appointed as a Mehta in 2006 and worked continuously for nearly eleven years. In 2017, he was terminated without notice, a charge sheet, a show-cause notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation.

The petitioner issued a demand notice, conciliation failed, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the petitioner’s termination was illegal and that the misconduct was not proved. However, instead of ordering reinstatement with back wages, the Labour Court awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

It was noted that once a finding of illegal termination is recorded, the dispute shifts to the nature of relief, and the Court must determine whether reinstatement is still a proper course; if not, what sum would serve as an alternative to such relief. Further, compensation, instead of reinstatement, has to be fixed on the view of the whole matter.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that since the petitioner worked for a substantial period, from 5 December 2006 till 10 August 2017, i.e., nearly eleven years of service, such service could not be treated as trivial, and compensation could not be reduced to a nominal amount that bore no relation to the service lost.

The High Court held that, since the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was too low, given the illegal termination and the period of unemployment, the Labour Court’s award suffered from inadequacy only on the question of relief. Therefore, balancing all material circumstances, award deserved modification only to the extent of compensation.

Thus, the finding of illegal termination was maintained; relief of reinstatement was not granted in the present facts, and the compensation awarded to the petitioner was enhanced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 6 lakhs.

List of Cases Referred to

• B. Choudhury v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1983 LAB. I.C. 1755 (para 11)
• Sri Lanka in Ceylon Transport Board v. A.H. Waijeratne 1976 (I) LLJ 182 (para 12)
• S.S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd. 1957 (II) LLJ 696 (para 13)
• Assam Oil Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen 1960 (1) LLJ 587 (para 14)
• MANAGEMENT OF UTKAL MACHINERY LTD. v. WORKMAN, SANTI PATNAIK [1966] 1965 taxmann.com 147 (SC) (para 14)
• Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P. P. Mundhe 1975 taxmann.com 135 (SC) (para 14)
• MANAGEMENT OF MONGHYR FACTORY OF I. T. C. LTD. v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT 1978 taxmann.com 315 (SC) (para 14)
• Anil Kumar Chakraborty v. Saraswatipur Tea Co. Ltd. 1982 taxmann.com 394 (SC) (para 14).