Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3357 OF 2008
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HOUSING BOARD HARYANA Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
DIWAN CHAND Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel
in support of this appeal and Mr. Adarsh Ganesh,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment
JUDGMENT
and order dated 23.01.2007 passed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P.
No.16553 of 2005 which confirms the order passed by
the Labour Court in Reference No.134 of 2001.
3. The short facts leading to this appeal are
this wise. The respondent was working as a Motormate
in the appellant Housing Board. The case of the
Page 1
2
respondent was that he had put in more than 240 days
service in a year when his services came to be
terminated some time in the year 1996. This led to
a reference to the Labour Court. The Labour Court
was of the view that there was no compliance of the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, it awarded
reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of
service without back-wages. That order has been left
undisturbed by the High Court. Therefore, this
appeal by special leave.
4. Mr. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant Housing Board submitted that according to
the appellant the respondent had not put in 240 days
service in one year and therefore, instead of
JUDGMENT
reinstatement, an appropriate amount of compensation
be awarded. Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent on the other hand,
submitted that the order of reinstatement passed by
the Labour Court cannot be faulted since the
respondent had in fact put in more than 240 days in
the concerned year and, therefore, the termination
was bad.
Page 2
3
5. We have noted the submissions of both the
learned counsel. We cannot deviate from the finding
of fact that the respondent had put in more than 240
days in the relevant year. Therefore, his
termination on the face of it was bad. However, we
accept the submission made by Mr. Hegde that since
the respondent was not in service for very long
period, it would be better if an appropriate amount
of compensation is paid to him instead of
reinstatement. We, therefore, modify the order
passed by the Labour Court and substitute it by an
award of compensation for a sum of Rs.1 lakh to be
paid to the respondent within a period of four weeks
from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT
.........................J
(H.L. GOKHALE)
..........................J
(RANJAN GOGOI)
New Delhi;
April 03, 2013.
Page 3