Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2144 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Fazilka Coop. Sugar Mills
RESPONDENT:
Jatinder Kumar Gupta and Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18636 of 2004)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the
writ petition challenge was to the award dated 10.12.2003
made by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, Punjab. By the said
award the respondent No.1-workman was directed to be re-
instated in service with continuity of service alongwith 50%
back wages from the date of demand notice. Grievance
before the High Court was that the appellant was not
granted opportunity to lead evidence. It appears that in the
writ petition No.14465 of 2001 the workman was directed
to be paid the subsistence allowance. Since the subsistence
allowance was not paid the Labour Court decided in favour
of the respondent and the appellant was not granted
permission to lead evidence. According to the learned
counsel for the appellant, the course adopted was illegal.
Learned counsel for the respondent-workman, however,
supported the orders stating that the order of the Labour
Court for payment of subsistence allowance was not illegal
and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing
the writ petition.
A few details so far as the factual position is
concerned need to be noted.
By order dated 18.9.2001 passed in C.W.P.No. 14465
of 2001 a Division Bench of the High Court had directed
the matter to be listed before a learned Single Judge on
19.2.2002. Meanwhile, it was ordered that the pleadings in
the case before the Labour Court were to be completed. It
appears that the subsistence allowance amounting to
Rs.5291/- was paid by the appellant vide demand draft
dated 30.1.2002. But the Labour Court had closed the
evidence of the management vide order dated 5.12.2001 on
the ground that the order dated 18.9.2001 passed by the
High Court had not been complied with by that date.
Undisputedly, the amount of subsistence allowance was
paid to the workman after the evidence was closed by order
dated 5.12.2001. The management had not paid the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
subsistence allowance to the workman. He was not re-
instated into service during the enquiry proceedings being
conducted by the Enquiry Officer. It is true that no date
was fixed. The High Court was of the view that looking at
the conduct of the management no interference with the
award of the Labour Court was called for.
One factor is clear that there was no date fixed for
payment but dates were fixed before the Labour Court in
the proceedings. The payment of subsistence allowance
after the order of the Labour Court closing the evidence so
far as the management is concerned cannot be termed as
in any manner arbitrary. However, the order of dismissal
was passed in 1992 and the industrial dispute was raised
under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short the ’Act’) on 11.5.1994 and a reference was made
under Section 10(1)(c)of the Act thereafter.
There appears to be some confusion so far as factual
position is concerned. The management was required to
give opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence on
merits. Since the enquiry was allegedly not conducted in
fair and proper manner opportunity was granted to the
management to adduce evidence. On the writ petition filed
by the respondent-workman the High Court had issued
notice. After this long passage of time it would not be
proper to direct re-instatement and that too with back
wages. It has been pointed out that the appellant is
suffering huge amount of loss amounting of Rs.35 crores.
In the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court’s
order in law is irreversible. But keeping in view the peculiar
facts of the case we direct that in full and final settlement
of the claims of the respondent-workman a sum of rupees 2
lakhs shall be paid within a period of 6 months from today.
The respondent-workman shall not have any further claim
and/or the appellant shall have no liability so far as
against respondent-workman is concerned.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no
order as to costs.