Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7395 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30550/2008)
Ashok Kumar Sharma …Appellant
Versus
Oberoi Flight Services …Respondent
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal by special leave, the workman has
challenged the judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of Delhi High Court on March 18, 2008 whereby
monetary compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been ordered to be
paid by the Management to him in lieu of reinstatement and
back wages.
3. The Appellant (for short “workman”) was employed
by Oberoi Flight Services-Respondent (for short “Management”)
as a loader on March 10, 1980. Allegedly on August 31, 1986
while returning from duty, the workman was found carrying 30
KLM soup spoons illegally in his shoe. The workman is said to
have admitted his guilt in writing on August 31, 1986 itself
and then again on the next day i.e. September 1, 1986. The
Management acting on the said admission of guilt by the
workman, vide order dated September 3, 1986 dismissed him
from service. Having been unsuccessful in his representation
and legal notice to the Management, the workman raised
industrial dispute before the appropriate Government which
was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Delhi on June
19, 1987.
4. The workman in his statement of claim before the
Labour Court set out that being a union leader, the
Management hatched a conspiracy against him for his removal
and obtained confession letters under threat and coercion. He
also set up the plea that without holding any inquiry and in
breach of the principles of the natural justice, the order of
dismissal was passed by the Management. In the written
statement, the Management, on the other hand, narrated the
circumstances in which the workman had stolen 30 KLM soup
2
spoons by carrying them in his shoe. The parties led evidence
in support of their respective stand. The Labour Court, after
hearing the parties, vide his award dated January 31, 1996 held
that order of dismissal passed by the Management was
contrary to law but at the same time it also held that the
dismissal of the workman from the service of the Management
was not unjustified. The Labour Court, however, awarded full
back wages to the workman from the date of his dismissal until
the date of award.
5. The workman challenged the award of the Labour
Court by filing Writ Petition which was heard by the Single
Judge. The Single Judge held that workman has failed to make
out any ground for interference with the impugned award and,
consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition on July 30, 2007.
6. Not satisfied with the order of the Single Judge, the
workman preferred Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench
held that it was difficult to believe the contention of the
Management that 30 KLM soup spoons could be put in a shoe
and that workman walked with the said spoons in his shoe from
the work area to the security check area. The Division Bench
3
also noticed that Management having not conducted any
enquiry, the dismissal of workman without issuing him charge-
sheet or a show cause notice was unsustainable. However, the
Division Bench vide his judgment dated March 18, 2008 did not
deem it proper to order reinstatement of the workman and
instead directed the Management to pay him Rs.60,000/- in full
and final settlement of the claim. It is this part of the order
which is under challenge in this appeal.
7. This Court in U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd.
1
V. Uday Narain Pandey held thus:
41. The Industrial Courts while adjudicating on
“
disputes between the Management and the workman,
therefore, must take such decisions which would be in
consonance with the purpose the law seeks to
achieve. When justice is the buzzword in the matter of
adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, it
would be wholly improper on the part of the superior
courts to make them apply the cold letter of the
statutes to act mechanically. Rendition of justice
would bring within its purview giving a person what is
due to him and not what can be given to him in law.
42. A person is not entitled to get something only
because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is
applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose
much of their significance.
45. The Court, therefore, emphasised that while
granting relief, application of mind on the part of the
Industrial Court is imperative. Payment of full back
wages, therefore, cannot be the natural
consequence.”
1
JT2005(10)SC344
4
8. In the case of Sita Ram V. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers
2
Training Institute this Court considered the matter thus:
“ 21. The question, which, however, falls for our
consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was
justified in awarding reinstatement of the appellants in
service.
22. Keeping in view the period during which the
services were rendered by the respondent ( sic
appellants); the fact that the respondent had stopped
its operation of bee farming, and the services of the
appellants were terminated in December 1996, we
are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the
appellants could have been directed to be reinstated
in service.
23. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a
discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is
required to be exercised judiciously. Relevant factors
therefor were required to be taken into consideration;
the nature of appointment, the period of appointment,
the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the
court for determination of such an issue.
24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined
that payment of adequate amount of compensation in
place of a direction to be reinstated in service in
cases of this nature would subserve the ends of
justice. (See Jaipur Development Authority v.
Ramsahai [(2006) 11 SCC 684], M.P. Admn. v.
Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748] and Uttaranchal Forest
Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC
353] )
25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum
of Rs. 1,00,000 to each of the appellants, would meet
the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the
aforementioned extent. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as
to costs.”
9. The afore-referred two decisions of this Court and
few more decisions were considered by us in the case of Jagbir
2
JT 2008 (3)SC622
5
3
Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board albeit in
the context of retrenchment of a daily wager in violation of
section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more
than 240 days in a year and we observed thus:
“ 7. It is true that earlier view of this Court
articulated in many decisions reflected the legal
position that if the termination of an employee was
found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full
back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in
recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position
and in long line of cases, this Court has consistently
taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with
back wages is not automatic and may be wholly
inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the
termination of an employee is in contravention to the
prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of
reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of
justice.”
10. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions of this
Court wherein award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement
and back wages has been held to be adequate and in the
interest of justice.
11. In light of the aforesaid legal position, the view of
the High Court that monetary compensation in lieu of
reinstatement of the workman would be proper cannot be said
to be unjustified. However, we find that the compensation in
the sum of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Division Bench is
3
JT 2009(9)SCC396
6
grossly inadequate. Regard being had to all relevant facts and
circumstances, including the nature of employment and the fact
that he was a confirmed employee, in our considered view
compensation of Rs.2 lacs to the appellant by the Respondent
shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such
payment should be made, after deducting the amount already
paid, within six weeks from today failing which the same shall
carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on unpaid
amount.
12. Appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent with
no order as to costs.
…………………
…J
(Tarun Chatterjee)
…….…………
…..J
(R. M. Lodha)
New Delhi
November 6, 2009.
7