Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.27 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP(C)NO.23294 OF 2014)
THE MANAGER(FACTORY) MAHARASHTRA STATE
COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.
& ANR. ... APPELLANTS
VS.
SURESH S/O DADARAO GADGE ... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
Leave granted.
2. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides
have requested for quick disposal of the appeal and we are
JUDGMENT
also of the view that earlier disposal of the appeal would
be in the interest of justice as well as the parties to
the litigation. In the circumstances, the appeal is heard
and decided today.
3. The respondent had been appointed as a peon on daily
st
wage basis on 1 July, 1994 and was discontinued from
th
service from 4 March, 1996, without making any payment
1
Page 1
of retrenchment compensation.
4. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had not
been engaged to work by following the normal practice and
thus he was engaged by way of “ back door entry ” .
5. The respondent had challenged his termination by
approaching the Labour Court, Nanded (Maharashtra). The
th
Labour Court, by its Award dated 29 December, 2010, in
Comp.ULP/No.2/1996, decided in favour of the respondent,
whereby it was directed that he should be reinstated in
th
service with continuity of service from 4 March, 1996,
but without back wages.
6. The said Award has been affirmed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court by its judgment and order
th
dated 27 March, 2014, passed in Writ Petition No.8809 of
2012.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the
JUDGMENT
High Court affirming the Award passed by the Labour Court,
the appellant-employer has approached this Court.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we
are of the view that the respondent ought not to have been
reinstated in service as he was not in a regular service.
In fact, no other person junior to the respondent had been
continued at Parbhani unit of the appellant, which had
2
Page 2
been closed down. In fact, there was no work at Parbhani
unit, as the said unit had been closed down, the
respondent, who was working on daily wage basis, was not
continued on daily wage basis, but it is an admitted fact
that he was not given retrenchment compensation.
9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in our
opinion, it would be just and appropriate not to reinstate
the respondent, especially, in view of the fact that (i)
the respondent had hardly worked for a period of about a
year and a half on daily wage basis; (ii) his appointment
was irregular and; (iii) Parbhani unit of the appellant,
where the respondent was employed, has now been closed
down.
10. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, it would
be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees
two lakhs only) by way of compensation to the respondent,
It is pertinent to note that he did not lead any evidence
JUDGMENT
or file any affidavit before the Labour Court stating that
he was unemployed during the period of litigation. The
aforestated amount of Rs.2 lakhs by way of compensation
shall be paid to the respondent by the appellant within
four weeks from today.
11. In addition to Rs.2 lakhs, the amount of cost
deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this
3
Page 3
Court, i.e., Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand
only), is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent.
12. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is
set aside and the appeal is allowed to the above extent
with no order as to costs.
..............J.
[ANIL R. DAVE]
.............J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
New Delhi;
th
17 December, 2014.
JUDGMENT
4
Page 4