Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.856 OF 2012
MANAGEMENT, HINDUSTAN
MACHINE TOOLS LTD. ...Appellant(s)
VERSUS
GHANSHYAM SHARMA …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the High
Court of Judicature of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil
Special Appeal (Writ) No.1417 of 1997 whereby the
High Court allowed the appeal filed by the
respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.10.30
15:56:27 IST
Reason:
1
2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
They are stated infra .
3. The appellant is a Government company
engaged in manufacture of certain items. It is
now declared as a sick company.
4. The respondent (workman) claimed that
he worked with the appellant Company as a
casual helper in its manufacturing plant from
10.06.1976 to 30.07.1977. He complained
that by an oral order; the appellant on
31.07.1977 terminated his services and,
therefore, since 31.07.1977 he is no longer in
the employment of the appellant.
5. The termination of the respondent,
therefore, gave rise to the industrial dispute
between the parties. The State, on the prayer
made by the respondent (workman), referred
the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act (for short “the Act”) to the Labour
2
Court, Jaipur on 03.11.1983, for its
adjudication.
6. The parties contested the Reference on
merits before the Labour Court. By award
dated 21.09.1988, the Labour Court answered
the Reference in respondent's favour.
7. It was held that termination of the
respondent was not legal and proper and,
therefore, it was liable to be set aside. It was
accordingly set aside. It was also held that the
respondent be reinstated in service by the
appellant and he be given continuity in service,
also.
8. The appellant (employercompany) felt
aggrieved and filed writ petition in the High
Court. By an order dated 17.09.1997, the
High Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ
petition and set aside the award of the Labour
Court.
3
9. The respondent (employee) felt aggrieved
and filed intra court appeal before the Division
Bench. By impugned order, the Division
Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order
of the learned Single Judge and restored the
award of the Labour Court which has given
rise to filing of this special leave to appeal by
the Employer in this court.
10. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, learned
senior counsel for the appellant. None
appeared for the respondent though served.
11. So the short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the
Division Bench was justified in allowing the
respondent's appeal and was, therefore,
justified in restoring the award of the Labour
Court.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and on perusal of the record of the
4
case, we are of the considered opinion that the
appeal deserves to be partly allowed by
modifying the award of the Labour Court to the
extent indicated infra .
13. It is not in dispute that the respondent
was a casual worker and hardly worked for one
year (10.6.1976 to 30.7.1977). It is also not in
dispute that his appointment was casual.
14. In a case of this nature, and having
regard to the fact that many decades had
passed in between with no evidence adduced
by the respondent that whether he was
gainfully employed from 1977 onwards or not,
the Labour Court should have awarded lump
sum money compensation to the respondent in
lieu of the relief of reinstatement along with
payment of back wages and continuity of
service by taking recourse to the powers under
Section 11A of the Act, rather than to direct
5
his reinstatement with all consequential
benefits.
15. In other words, having regard to the
peculiar nature of the respondent's
appointment and rendering of services by him
for a very short duration (just 240 days only)
and with no evidence as to whether he worked
for gains or not after his services came to an
end in 1977, this was a fit case where the
Labour Court should have awarded lump sum
compensation to the respondent instead of
directing his reinstatement in service with
consequential benefits. The Labour Court was
empowered to pass such order by taking
recourse to the powers under Section 11A of
the Act. This has also been the view of this
Court in such type of cases. ( See Senior
Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal
vs.
Santosh Kumar Seal Assistant Engineer
6
Rajasthan Development Corporation vs
Gitam Singh (2010) 6 SCC 773 and Assistant
Engineer, Rajasthan Development
vs. (2013) 5
Corporation & Ors. Gitam Singh
SCC 136).
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we
allow this appeal in part and while modifying
the impugned order and the award of the
Labour Court, direct the appellant to pay a
sum of Rs. 50,000/ in lump sum to the
respondent (employee) by way of compensation
in lieu of respondent’s right to claim
reinstatement in service.
17. The amount of compensation is fixed by
this Court after taking into account all facts
and circumstances of the case including the
fact of making payment to the respondent by
way of monthly salary during pendency of the
writ petition/intra court appeal by the
7
appellant under Section 17B of the Act. In
our view, it is a reasonable compensation in
the facts of this case.
18. Let the amount of Rs.50,000/ be paid to
the respondent by the appellant within three
months from the date of this order.
19. Pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
……..……................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
October 30, 2018
8