advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - where the workman had worked for only eight months as daily wager and his termination has been held to be in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ID Act’), whether the direction to the employer for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages is legally sustainable.


                                                                  REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8415 OF 2009




Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & Anr.                      ……
Appellants


                         Vs.


Gitam Singh                                                    ……
Respondent














                                  JUDGMENT



R.M. LODHA, J.


            The  short  question  that  arises  for  consideration  in  this
appeal, by special leave, is
  where the workman had  worked  for  only  eight
months  as  daily  wager  and  his  termination  has  been  held  to  be  in
contravention of Section 25-F of the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (for
short, ‘ID Act’), whether the direction to the  employer  for  reinstatement
with  continuity  of  service  and  25  per  cent  back  wages  is   legally
sustainable.
2.          We were not disposed to undertake the detailed exercise but  the
same has become necessary in view of very vehement contention of Mr.  Sushil
Kumar  Jain,  learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   (workman),   that
reinstatement must follow where termination of a workman has been  found  to
be in breach of Section 25-F of  ID  Act.   He  heavily  relied  upon  three
decisions of this Court  in   L.  Robert  D’Souza   v.  Executive  Engineer,
Southern  Railway  and  Another[1],  Harjinder   Singh   v.   Punjab   State
Warehousing  Corporation[2]   and  Devinder  Singh  v.  Municipal   Council,
Sanaur[3] .
3.          On  behalf  of  the  appellant,  Ms.  Shobha,  learned  counsel,
challenged the finding of the Labour Court that the  respondent  had  worked
for 240 days continuously in the year preceding  the  date  of  termination.
Alternatively,  she  submitted  that  the  award   of   reinstatement   with
continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages in the facts  of  the  case
was unjustified as the respondent was only a daily wager; he  worked  for  a
very short period from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991 and for last  more  than  20
years he is not in the service due to interim  orders.    Relying  upon  the
decisions  of  this  Court  in   Haryana   State   Electronics   Development
Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni[4], Mahboob Deepak v.  Nagar  Panchayat,  Gajraula
and Another[5], Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State  Agriculture  Marketing  Board
and  Another[6],  Senior  Superintendent  Telegraph  (Traffic),  Bhopal   v.
Santosh Kumar Seal and  Others[7]  and  In-charge  Officer  and  Another  v.
Shankar Shetty[8], she submitted that respondent was  at  best  entitled  to
some compensation for unlawful termination.
4.          It is not in dispute that respondent  was  engaged  as  a  daily
wager.  The Labour Court, Bharatpur,  in  its  award  dated  28.06.2001  has
recorded the findings that the respondent had worked as technician  (Mistri)
under the  appellant  for  240  days  for  the  period  from  01.03.1991  to
31.10.1991  and  the  termination  of  his  service  by  an  oral  order  on
31.10.1991 was violative of Section  25-F  of  the  ID  Act.    We  are  not
inclined to disturb the findings recorded by the Labour Court; we take  them
to be correct. The question,  as  noted  above,  is  whether  direction  for
reinstatement of respondent with continuity in service  along  with  25  per
cent of back wages in view of the above findings  is just and proper.
5.          More than five decades back, this Court  in  Assam  Oil  Company
Limited, New Delhi v.  Its Workmen[9]  observed  that  the  normal  rule  in
cases of wrongful dismissal was  reinstatement  but  there  could  be  cases
where it would not be expedient to follow this normal  rule  and  to  direct
reinstatement. Having regard to the facts  of  that  case,  this  Court  set
aside the order of reinstatement although  dismissal  of  the  employee  was
found to be wrongful and awarded compensation.
6.          In  M/s.  Hindustan  Steels  Ltd.,  Rourkela  v.  A.K.  Roy  and
Others[10], this Court noted that there have been cases where  reinstatement
has not been considered as either desirable or expedient.
7.           In  M/s.  Ruby  General  Insurance  Co.  Ltd.  v.   Shri   P.P.
Chopra[11], this Court reiterated what  was  stated  in  Assam  Oil  Company
Limited9.  In paragraph 6 (pgs. 655-656) of the Report, this Court said  :
           “6. The normal rule is  that  in  cases  of  invalid  orders  of
           dismissal industrial adjudication would direct reinstatement  of
           a dismissed employee. Nevertheless, there would be  cases  where
           it would not be expedient to adopt such  a  course.  Where,  for
           instance, the office of the employer was comparatively  a  small
           one  and  the  dismissed  employee  held  the  position  of  the
           secretary, a position of confidence and trust, and the  employer
           had lost confidence in the concerned employee, reinstatement was
           held to be not fair to either party……………”

8.          This Court in The Management  of  Panitole  Tea  Estate  v.  The
Workmen[12], while dealing with the judicial discretion of the Labour  Court
or the Tribunal under ID Act in  directing  appropriate  relief  on  setting
aside the wrongful dismissal of a workman, stated in paragraph 5 (pgs.  746-
747) as follows:
           “…. The question whether on setting aside the wrongful dismissal
           of a workman he should be reinstated  or  directed  to  be  paid
           compensation is a matter within the judicial discretion  of  the
           Labour Court  or  the  Tribunal,  dealing  with  the  industrial
           dispute,  the  general  rule  in  the  absence  of  any  special
           circumstances  being  of  reinstatement.  In   exercising   this
           discretion, fairplay towards the employee on the  one  hand  and
           interest of the employer, including considerations of discipline
           in  the  establishment,  on  the  other,  require  to  be   duly
           safeguarded. This is necessary in the interest both of  security
           of tenure of the employee and of smooth and  harmonious  working
           of the establishment. Legitimate interests of both of them  have
           to be kept in view if the  order  is  expected  to  promote  the
           desired objective  of  industrial  peace  and  maximum  possible
           production. The past record of the employer, the nature  of  the
           alleged conduct for which action  was  taken  against  him,  the
           grounds on which the order of the employer  is  set  aside,  the
           nature of the duties performed by the employee concerned and the
           nature of the industrial establishment are  some  of  the  broad
           relevant factors which require to be taken  into  consideration.
           The factors just stated are merely illustrative and  it  is  not
           possible to exhaustively enumerate them. Each  case  has  to  be
           decided on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can  be  laid
           down to cover generally all conceivable contingencies……”


9.          In M/s. Tulsidas  Paul  v.The  Second  Labour  Court,  W.B.  and
Others[13], this Court relied upon M/s. Hindustan Steels Ltd.10 and held  as
under:
           “9. In Hindustan Steels Ltd.  v.  Roy  [(1969)  3  SCC  513]  we
           recently held, after considering  the  previous  case-law,  that
           though the normal rule, in cases where dismissal or removal from
           service is found to be unjustified, is reinstatement, Industrial
           Tribunals have the discretion to award compensation  in  unusual
           or exceptional circumstances where the  tribunal  considers,  on
           consideration of the conflicting claims of the employer  on  the
           one  hand  and  of  the  workmen  on  the  other,  reinstatement
           inexpedient or not desirable. We also held that no hard and fast
           rule as to which circumstances would constitute an exception  to
           the general rule can be laid down as the tribunal in  each  case
           must, in a spirit of fairness and justice and  in  keeping  with
           the objectives of industrial  adjudication,  decide  whether  it
           should, in the interest of  justice,  depart  from  the  general
           rule.”


10.         In L. Robert D’Souza1, this Court  in  paragraph  27  (pg.  664)
held as under :
           “27. ……….Therefore, assuming that he was a  daily-rated  worker,
           once he has rendered  continuous  uninterrupted  service  for  a
           period of one year or more, within the meaning of  Section  25-F
           of the  Act  and  his  service  is  terminated  for  any  reason
           whatsoever and the case does not fall in  any  of  the  excepted
           categories, notwithstanding the fact that  Rule  2505  would  be
           attracted, it would have to be read subject to the provisions of
           the Act. Accordingly the termination of  service  in  this  case
           would constitute retrenchment and for not  complying  with  pre-
           conditions to valid retrenchment, the order of termination would
           be illegal and invalid.”

11.         What has been held by this Court in L. Robert
D’Souza1 is that Section 25-F of the ID Act is applicable to  a  daily-rated
worker.  We do not think that there is any dispute on this proposition.
12.         In Manager, Reserve Bank of India,  Bangalore  v.  S.  Mani  and
Others[14], this Court in paragraph 54 (pg.  120)  of  the  Report  held  as
under:

           “54. Mr. Phadke, as noticed  hereinbefore,  has  referred  to  a
           large number of decisions for demonstrating that this Court  had
           directed reinstatement even if the workmen concerned were daily-
           wagers or were employed intermittently. No  proposition  of  law
           was  laid  down  in  the  aforementioned  judgments.  The   said
           judgments of this Court, moreover, do not lay down any principle
           having universal application so that the Tribunals, or for  that
           matter the High Court, or this  Court,  may  feel  compelled  to
           direct reinstatement with continuity of service and back  wages.
           The Tribunal has some discretion in this matter. Grant of relief
           must depend on the fact  situation  obtaining  in  a  particular
           case. The industrial adjudicator cannot be held to be  bound  to
           grant some relief only because it will be lawful to do so.”

13.         In Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal Corpn.) v. State of U.P.  and
Others[15], this Court, while  dealing  with  the  non-compliance  with  the
provisions of Section 6-N (which is pari materia to Section  25-F)  of  U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act held that the grant of relief of reinstatement  with
full back wages and continuity of service in favour  of  retrenched  workmen
would not automatically follow or as  a  matter  of  course.  Instead,  this
Court modified the award of reinstatement with compensation of Rs.  30,000/-
per workman.
14.         In Municipal  Council,  Sujanpur  v.  Surinder  Kumar[16],  this
Court after having accepted the finding that there was violation of  Section
25-F of the ID Act, set aside the award of  reinstatement  with  back  wages
and directed the workman  to be paid monetary compensation  in  the  sum  of
Rs. 50,000/-.
15.         In Mamni4 , this  Court  modified  the  award  of  reinstatement
passed by the Labour Court, though  the termination of the  workman  was  in
violation of Section 25-F of the ID  Act,  by  directing  that  the  workman
should  be compensated by payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
16.         In Regional Manager,  SBI  v.  Mahatma  Mishra[17],  this  Court
observed that it was one thing to  say  that  services  of  a  workman  were
terminated in violation of mandatory provisions of law but  it  was  another
thing to say that relief of reinstatement in service with  full  back  wages
would be granted automatically.
17.         In Haryana Urban  Development  Authority  v.  Om  Pal[18],  this
Court in paragraphs 7 and 8 (pg. 745) of the Report held as under :
           “7. Moreover, it is also now well settled that  despite  a  wide
           discretionary power conferred upon the Industrial  Courts  under
           Section 11-A of the 1947 Act, the relief of  reinstatement  with
           full back wages should not be granted automatically only because
           it would be lawful to do so. Grant of relief would depend on the
           fact situation obtaining in  each  case.  It  will  depend  upon
           several factors, one  of  which  would  be  as  to  whether  the
           recruitment was effected in terms of  the  statutory  provisions
           operating in the field, if any.


           8.  The respondent worked for a  very  short  period.   He  only
           worked, as noticed  hereinbefore,  in  1994-95.  The  Industrial
           Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, therefore, in our  opinion  committed
           an  illegality,  while  passing  an  award  in  the  year  2003,
           directing the reinstatement of the  respondent  with  full  back
           wages. Although we are of the opinion that  the  respondent  was
           not entitled to any relief, whatsoever, we direct the  appellant
           to pay him a sum of Rs. 25,000.”

18.         In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v.  M.C.Joshi[19],
the Court was concerned with a daily wager who had worked  with  Uttaranchal
Forest Development Corporation  from  01.08.1989  to  24.11.1991  and  whose
services were held to be terminated in violation of Section 6-N of the  U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had directed the reinstatement  of
the workman with 50 per  cent  back  wages  from  the  date  the  industrial
dispute was raised. Setting  aside  the  order  of  reinstatement  and  back
wages, this Court awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.  75,000/-  in  favour
of the workman keeping in view the nature and period of service rendered  by
the workman and the fact  that  industrial  dispute  was  raised  after  six
years.
19.         In Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban [20] , this  Court
upheld the order of the Industrial Court passed in  its  jurisdiction  under
Section 11A of the ID Act awarding compensation and set aside  the  judgment
of the Single Judge and the Division Bench that  ordered  the  reinstatement
of the workman with full back wages. The Court in paragraph 12 (pg. 755)  of
the Report held as under:

           “12.  In  this  case,  the  Industrial   Court   exercised   its
           discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the  Industrial
           Disputes Act. It merely directed the amount of  compensation  to
           which the respondent was entitled had the provisions of  Section
           25-F been complied with should be sufficient to meet the ends of
           justice. We are not suggesting that the  High  Court  could  not
           interfere  with  the   said   order,   but   the   discretionary
           jurisdiction exercised by the Industrial Court, in our  opinion,
           should have been taken into consideration for  determination  of
           the question as to what relief should be granted in the peculiar
           facts and circumstances of this case. Each case is  required  to
           be dealt with in the fact situation obtaining therein.”

20.         In Mahboob  Deepak5  ,  this  Court  stated  that  an  order  of
retrenchment passed in violation of  Section  6-N  of  the  U.P.  Industrial
Disputes Act may be set aside but  an  order  of  reinstatement  should  not
however be automatically passed.  The Court observed in  paragraphs  11  and
12 (pg. 578) of the Report as follows:-

           “11. The High Court, on the other hand,  did  not  consider  the
           effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Section  6-N  of
           the U.P. Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947.   The  appellant  was
           entitled to compensation, notice and notice pay.


           12.  It is now well settled by a catena  of  decisions  of  this
           Court that in a situation of this nature instead and in place of
           directing reinstatement with full back wages, the workmen should
           be granted adequate monetary compensation. (See  M.P.  Admn.  v.
           Tribhuban20).”

21.         In Telecom District Manager and others v. Keshab  Deb[21],  this
Court said that even if the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D.  Act  had
not  been  complied  with,  the  workman  was   only   entitled   to    just
compensation.
22.         In Talwara Co-operative Credit and Service  Society  Limited  v.
Sushil Kumar[22], this Court in paragraph 8 (pg. 489) of the Report held  as
under :

           “8. Grant of a relief of reinstatement,  it  is  trite,  is  not
           automatic. Grant of  back  wages  is  also  not  automatic.  The
           Industrial Courts while exercising their power under Section 11-
           A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are required to strike  a
           balance in a situation of this nature.  For  the  said  purpose,
           certain relevant factors, as for example, nature of service, the
           mode and manner of recruitment viz. whether the appointment  had
           been made in accordance with the statutory rules  so  far  as  a
           public sector undertaking is concerned, etc.,  should  be  taken
           into consideration.”

23.         In Jagbir Singh6 ,  this  Court,  speaking  through  one  of  us
(R.M. Lodha, J.) while dealing with the  question  of  consequential  relief
arising  from  the  facts  quite  similar  to  the  present  case,   ordered
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid  by  the  employer  to  the  workman
instead of reinstatement.   In paragraph 14 (pg.335)  of  the  Report,  this
Court held as under :
           “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  distinguished
           between a daily wager who does not hold a post and  a  permanent
           employee.”

24.          In  Uttar  Pradesh  State  Electricity  Board  v.  Laxmi   Kant
Gupta[23], this Court stated,  “…. now there is no such principle  that  for
an illegal termination of service the  normal  rule  is  reinstatement  with
back wages, and instead the Labour Court can award compensation”.
25.         In Santosh Kumar Seal7, while dealing with  a  case  of  workmen
who were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and had  hardly  worked
for two or three years, this Court speaking through one of us  (R.M.  Lodha,
J.) held that reinstatement  with  back  wages  could  not  be  said  to  be
justified and instead monetary  compensation  would  subserve  the  ends  of
justice. It was held that compensation  of  Rs.  40,000/-  to  each  of  the
workmen would meet the ends of justice.
26.         From the long line of cases indicated  above,  it  can  be  said
without any fear of contradiction  that  this  Court  has  not  held  as  an
absolute proposition that in cases  of  wrongful  dismissal,  the  dismissed
employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always  been
the view of this Court that there could be circumstance(s) in a  case  which
may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement.  Therefore, the normal  rule
that dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in  cases  of  wrongful
dismissal has been held to be not without exception.   Insofar  as  wrongful
termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this Court  has  laid  down
that consequential relief would depend on host of  factors,  namely,  manner
and method of appointment, nature  of  employment  and  length  of  service.
Where the length of engagement as daily wager has not been  long,  award  of
reinstatement should not follow and rather compensation should  be  directed
to be paid.  A distinction has been drawn  between  a  daily  wager  and  an
employee holding the regular post for the purposes of consequential  relief.

27.         We shall now consider two decisions of this Court  in  Harjinder
Singh2 and Devinder Singh3 upon which heavy reliance has been placed by  the
learned counsel for the respondent.  In Harjinder Singh2 ,  this  Court  did
interfere with the order of the High Court  which  awarded  compensation  to
the workman by modifying the award of reinstatement  passed  by  the  Labour
Court. However, on close scrutiny of facts it transpires  that  that  was  a
case where a workman was initially  employed  by  Punjab  State  Warehousing
Corporation as work-charge motor mate but after few months he was  appointed
as work munshi in the regular pay-scale for three months.  His  service  was
extended from time to time and later on by one month’s notice given  by  the
Managing Director of the Corporation his  service  was  brought  to  end  on
05.07.1988. The workman  challenged             the  implementation  of  the
notice in a writ petition and by an interim order the High Court stayed  the
implementation of that notice but later on the writ petition  was  withdrawn
with liberty to the workman to avail his remedy under the ID Act. After  two
months, the  Managing  Director  of  the  Corporation  issued  notice  dated
26.11.1992 for retrenchment of the workman along with few others  by  giving
them  one  month’s  pay  and  allowances  in  lieu  of  notice  as  per  the
requirement of Section 25-F(a) of the ID Act. On  industrial  dispute  being
raised, the Labour Court found that there was  compliance  of  Section  25-F
but it was found that the  termination was violative of Section 25-G of  the
ID Act and, accordingly, Labour Court passed an award for  reinstatement  of
the workman with 50 per cent back wages.    The Single Judge  of  that  High
Court did not approve the award of reinstatement on  the  premise  that  the
initial appointment of the workman was not in consonance with the  statutory
regulations and Articles 14 and 16  of  the  Constitution  and  accordingly,
substituted the award of reinstatement  with  50  per  cent  back  wages  by
directing  that the workman shall be paid a sum of Rs. 87,582/-  by  way  of
compensation. It is this order of the Single Judge that  was  set  aside  by
this Court and order of the Labour Court restored. We are afraid  the  facts
in Harjinder Singh2  are quite distinct.  That was not a case  of  a  daily-
rated worker.  It was  held that Single Judge was wrong in  entertaining  an
unfounded plea that workman was employed in violation  of  Articles  14  and
16. Harjinder Singh2 turned on its own facts and is not  applicable  to  the
facts of the present case at all.
28.         In Devinder Singh3  ,  the  workman  was  engaged  by  Municipal
Council, Sanaur on 01.08.1994 for doing the  work  of  clerical  nature.  He
continued in service till 29.09.1996.  His  service  was  discontinued  with
effect from  30.09.1996  in  violation  of  Section  25-F  of  ID  Act.   On
industrial dispute being referred for adjudication, the  Labour  Court  held
that the workman had worked for more  than  240  days  in  a  calendar  year
preceding the termination of his service  and  his  service  was  terminated
without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F.  Accordingly,  Labour
Court passed an award for reinstatement of  the  workman  but  without  back
wages. Upon challenge being laid to the  award  of  the  Labour  Court,  the
Division Bench set aside the order of  the  Labour  Court  by  holding  that
Labour Court should not have ordered reinstatement of  the  workman  because
his appointment was contrary to the Recruitment Rules and  Articles  14  and
16 of the Constitution.   In the appeal before  this Court  from  the  order
of the Division Bench, this Court held  that  the  High  Court  had  neither
found any jurisdictional infirmity in the award of the Labour Court  nor  it
came to the conclusion that the award  was  vitiated  by  an  error  of  law
apparent on the face of the  record  and  notwithstanding  these   the  High
Court set aside the direction given by the Labour  Court  for  reinstatement
of the workman by assuming that his  initial  appointment  was  contrary  to
law. The approach of the High Court  was  found  to  be  erroneous  by  this
Court. This Court, accordingly, set aside the order of the  High  Court  and
restored the award of the Labour Court. In Devinder Singh3 ,  the Court  had
not dealt with the question about the consequential relief to be granted  to
the workman whose termination was held to be illegal being in  violation  of
Section 25-F.
29.         In our view, Harjinder Singh2 and Devinder Singh3   do  not  lay
down  the  proposition  that  in  all   cases   of   wrongful   termination,
reinstatement must follow.  This Court found in those  cases  that  judicial
discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court  on
wrong assumption that the initial employment of the  employee  was  illegal.
As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of  a  daily  wager,
who had worked for a short period, this Court in  long  line  of  cases  has
held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief  and
rather award of compensation  in such cases would be in consonance with  the
demand of justice.  Before exercising its judicial  discretion,  the  Labour
Court has to keep in view all  relevant  factors,  including  the  mode  and
manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service,  the  ground
on which the termination has been set aside and the  delay  in  raising  the
industrial dispute before grant of relief  in  an  industrial  dispute.  30.
We may also refer to a recent decision  of  this  Court  in  Bharat  Sanchar
Nigam Limited v. Man Singh[24]. That was a case where the workmen, who  were
daily wagers during the year  1984-85,  were  terminated  without  following
Section 25-F. The  industrial  dispute  was  raised  after  five  years  and
although the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement  of  the  workmen  which
was not interfered by the High Court, this Court  set  aside  the  award  of
reinstatement and ordered payment of compensation. In  paragraphs  4  and  5
(pg.559) of the Report this Court held as under:
           “4. This Court in a catena of decisions has  clearly  laid  down
           that although an order of retrenchment passed  in  violation  of
           Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but
           an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This  Court  has
           distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and
           a permanent employee.


           5. In view of the aforementioned legal  position  and  the  fact
           that the respondent workmen were engaged as “daily  wagers”  and
           they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered
           view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and
           instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice.”

31.         In light of the above legal position and having  regard  to  the
facts of the present case, namely, the workman was engaged  as  daily  wager
on 01.03.1991 and he worked hardly  for  eight  months  from  01.03.1991  to
31.10.1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to  exercise  its  judicial
discretion appropriately.  The judicial discretion exercised by  the  Labour
Court suffers from serious infirmity.  The  Single  Judge  as  well  as  the
Division Bench of the High Court also erred in  not  considering  the  above
aspect at all.  The award dated 28.06.2001 directing  reinstatement  of  the
respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in  the  facts  and
circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be  set  aside  and
is set aside.  In our view,  compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by  the  appellant
to the respondent shall meet the ends  of  justice.  We  order  accordingly.
Such payment shall be made to the respondent within  six  weeks  from  today
failing which the same will carry interest @ 9 per cent per annum.
32.         The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent with  no  order
as to costs.


                                                  …………………….J.
                                                        (R.M. Lodha)




                                          …………….…………………….J.
                                         (Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY 31, 2013.
-----------------------
[1]    (1982) 1 SCC 645
[2]     (2010) 3 SCC 192
[3]     (2011) 6 SCC 584
[4]     (2006) 9 SCC 434
[5]     (2008) 1 SCC 575
[6]     (2009) 15 SCC 327
[7]     (2010) 6 SCC 773
[8]     (2010) 9 SCC 126
[9]     AIR 1960 SC 1264
[10]    (1969) 3 SCC 513
[11]    (1969) 3 SCC 653
[12]    (1971) 1 SCC 742
[13]    (1972) 4 SCC 205
[14]    (2005) 5 SCC 100
[15]    (2006) 5 SCC 127
[16]    (2006) 5 SCC 173
[17]    (2006) 13 SCC 727
[18]    (2007) 5 SCC 742
[19]    (2007) 9 SCC 353
[20]    (2007) 9 SCC 748
[21]    (2008) 8 SCC 402
[22]    (2008) 9 SCC 486
[23]    (2009) 16 SCC 562
[24]    (2012) 1 SCC 558

-----------------------
17


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.