Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.124125 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 1081510816 of 2017)
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Raj Kumar ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final
judgment and order dated 24.11.2015 in W.P.
No.1116 of 2015 and dated 27.06.2016 in RAMCC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.01.07
17:40:07 IST
Reason:
1
No. 333 of 2016 passed by the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital.
3.
By impugned order dated 24.11.2015 passed
in writ petition, the High Court modified the award
dated 25.02.2015 in Workman Disputes Case No.45
of 2014 by which the Labour Court, Haridwar had
awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/ to the
respondent in lieu of reinstatement and instead
directed the State (appellant herein) to reinstate the
respondent (worker) without awarding to him any
back wages. The High Court also granted liberty to
the State to proceed against the respondent (worker)
in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”). Against this order, the
State filed review application before the High Court.
The review was dismissed vide order dated
27.06.2016 which has now given rise to two special
2
leave to appeals by State questioning the legality
and correctness of the main order dated 24.11.2015
and review order dated 27.06.2016 by way of special
leave before this Court.
4. It is the case of the respondent (worker) that
he worked as Beldar in the State PWD Department
(Haridwar) as a daily wager for about a year from
June 1986 to May 1987 and thereafter his services
were brought to an end by the State without
following the due procedure prescribed in law.
5. After almost 25 years of his alleged
termination, the respondent filed a petition in the
Labour Court, Haridwar (45/2014) questioning the
legality and correctness of his termination.
6. By award 25.02.2015, the Labour Court
awarded monetary compensation of Rs.30,000/ in
full and final satisfaction to the respondent
3
(workman) against his claim of reinstatement and
all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
7. The respondent, therefore, felt aggrieved and
filed writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand
at Nainital. By impugned order, the High Court
modified the award of the Labour Court and instead
directed reinstatement of the respondent in the
State services but without payment of any back
wages to him which has given rise to filing of the
present appeals by way of special leave by the State
before this Court.
8. Heard Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, learned counsel
for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned
counsel for the respondent.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeals in part and modify
the impugned order to the extent indicated infra.
4
10. In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by
the two decisions of this Court rendered in the case
of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal
(2014) 7 SCC 177 and District Development
Officer and Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia
(2018) 12 SCC 298.
11. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has
held in the case of
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
(supra):
“33. It is clear from the reading of the
aforesaid judgments that the ordinary
principle of grant of reinstatement with full
back wages, when the termination is found to
be illegal is not applied mechanically in all
cases. While that may be a position where
services of a regular/permanent workman are
terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or
by way of victimisation, unfair labour
practice, etc. However, when it comes to the
case of termination of a dailywage worker
and where the termination is found illegal
because of a procedural defect, namely, in
violation of Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in
taking the view that in such cases
reinstatement with back wages is not
5
automatic and instead the workman should
be given monetary compensation which will
meet the ends of justice. Rationale for
shifting in this direction is obvious.
34. The reasons for denying the relief of
reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is
trite law that when the termination is found
to be illegal because of nonpayment of
retrenchment compensation and notice pay
as mandatorily required under Section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after
reinstatement, it is always open to the
management to terminate the services of
that employee by paying him the
retrenchment compensation. Since such a
workman was working on dailywage basis
and even after he is reinstated, he has no
right to seek regularisation [see State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)17]. Thus when he
cannot claim regularisation and he has no
right to continue even as a dailywage
worker, no useful purpose is going to be
served in reinstating such a workman and he
can be given monetary compensation by the
Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated
again after reinstatement, he would receive
monetary compensation only in the form of
retrenchment compensation and notice pay.
In such a situation, giving the relief of
reinstatement, that too after a long gap,
would not serve any purpose.
“35. We would, however, like to add a caveat
here. There may be cases where termination
of a dailywage worker is found to be illegal
on the ground that it was resorted to as
unfair labour practice or in violation of the
6
principle of last come first go viz. while
retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors
to him were retained. There may also be a
situation that persons junior to him were
regularised under some policy but the
workman concerned terminated. In such
circumstances, the terminated worker should
not be denied reinstatement unless there are
some other weighty reasons for adopting the
course of grant of compensation instead of
reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement
should be the rule and only in exceptional
cases for the reasons stated to be in writing,
such a relief can be denied.”
12. Here is also a case where the respondent
claimed to have worked as daily wager hardly for a
period of one year or so in PWD of the State;
Secondly, he had no right to claim regularization;
Thirdly, he had no right to continue as daily wager
and lastly, the dispute was raised by the respondent
(workman) almost after 25 years of the alleged
termination before the Labour Court.
13. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that
the case of the respondent would squarely fall in
the category of cases discussed by this Court in
7
Para 34 of the judgment rendered in
Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra).
14. In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of
the considered view that it would be just, proper
and reasonable to award lump sum monetary
compensation to the respondent in full and final
satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other
consequential benefits by taking recourse to the
powers under Section 11A of the Act and the law
laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited’s case (supra).
15. Having regard to the totality of the facts taken
note of supra, we consider it just and reasonable to
award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs.One lakh) to the
respondent in lieu of his right to claim re
instatement and back wages in full and final
satisfaction of this dispute in place of Rs.30,000/
awarded by the Labour Court. Only to this extent
8
we modify the award of the Labour Court in
quantum of award of compensation by enhancing it
from Rs.30,000/ to Rs.1,00,000 (one lakh).
16. Let the payment of Rs.1,00,000/ be paid by
the appellant(State) to the respondent within three
months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are allowed in part. The impugned
orders of the High Court in the writ petition and the
review application are set aside. The Award of the
Labour Court dated 25.02.2015 is accordingly
modified to the extent indicated above.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
January 07, 2019.
9