Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs 4858-4859 OF 2016
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 35984-35985 OF 2015]
GHANSHYAM SUKHDEO GAIKWAD AND ORS Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BAJAJ AUTO LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4860-4862 OF 2016
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 35986-35988 OF 2015]
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals have a chequered history. The
appellants started the litigation way back in the
year 1991 by approaching initially the Labour Court
and thereafter, the Industrial Court at Pune. The
Labour Court dismissed their complaint. The
JUDGMENT
Industrial Court remanded the matter to the Labour
Court, which was pursued by the Management before the
High Court. The High Court set aside the orders of
the Labour Court and the Industrial Court by consent,
and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court by
order dated 09.04.1996. The Labour Court, by order
dated 12.12.1997, dismissed the complaint. The
appellants pursued the matter before the Industrial
Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the
Page 1
2
complaint and directed reinstatement of the workmen,
however, without backwages, by its order dated
22.01.1998.
3. Both sides, feeling aggrieved, approached the
High Court of judicature of Bombay, which has led to
the impugned Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2015, by
which the High Court has dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellants and allowed the writ petition
filed by the Management, holding that the
retrenchment was in order.
4. Thus aggrieved, the workmen are before this Court
in these appeals.
5. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides
extensively. During the course of hearing, it was
noticed by this Court that in the year 2007, one of
the appellants (according to the learned counsel for
the Management, all the appellants) was offered
JUDGMENT
Voluntary Retirement (VRS), by which Scheme, the
appellant would be receiving an amount of
Rs.20,40,981/-, inclusive of Provident Fund and
Gratuity. It appears that the workman was not happy
with the offer. According to Mr. Sanjay Singhvi,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
some of them were not offered the said Scheme.
6. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that all
the appellants have been getting regular wages ever
since 2002, as applicable to permanent workers.
Page 2
3
According to Mr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel, the
wages of regular workers did not actually include
certain allowances. It is also not in dispute that
the Management has not been extracting any work from
the appellants since April, 2003, though according to
the appellants, they have been reporting everyday for
work and they have been sitting in the premises of
the Company only.
7. Having regard to the background of the
litigation, having regard to the fact that thousands
of employees have been discharged on VRS by the
Management and having regard to the fact that out of
the 65 people who pursued the litigation, 59 people
have already gone on VRS or otherwise, and having
regard to the age factor of the appellants, we are of
the view that the interest of justice would be
advanced if the appellants are paid a lump sum amount
JUDGMENT
towards settlement of all their dues. Though neither
the Management nor the workmen could agree on the
offers made from either side, having regard to all
the aspects which we have referred to above, we feel
that to do complete justice between the parties, it
will be appropriate that the appellants are given an
amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs) each. The
said amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs will be paid to the
appellants within six weeks from today and in case of
default in making the payment, the amount shall carry
Page 3
4
interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the
award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
8. We make it clear that the said amount of Rs. 10
Lakhs will not include the claim of the workmen for
Gratuity and Provident Fund. We also clarify that
the Gratuity will be calculated on the basis of the
wages drawn by the workmen as of now and with
continuous service till today.
9. In view of the above observations and directions,
the appeals are disposed of with no order as to
costs.
10. It is made clear that we have invoked our special
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
and, therefore, this Judgment will not be treated as
a precedent.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
JUDGMENT
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
May 05, 2016.
Page 4