2006 JTR(SC) 841
2007 49 AIC 145 ; 2006 AIR(SCW) 5159 ; 2006 111 FLR 323 ; 2007 2 JCR(SC) 282 ; 2006 4 JLJR(SC) 188 ; 2006 LIC 4054 ; 2006 3 LLJ 1058 ; 2006 4 LLN 809 ; 2006 LLR 1151 ; 2006 4 PLJR(SC) 207 ; 2006 9 Scale 230 ; 2006 7 SCC 752 ; 2006 SCC(L&S) 1776 ; 2006 7 SCJ 52 ; 2006 Supp6 SCR 121 ; 2007 3 SLR 874 ; 2006 KHC 1484 ; 2006 7 Supreme 219
2006(7) Supreme 219
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation—Appellant
versus
Man Singh—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4107 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21538 of 2005)
Decided on 13-9-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :A.K. Pandey, Sudanshu Saran, Ms. Sunita Singh, Rajeev Singh, Pradeep Misra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Rajesh Prasad Singh, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
While exercising power u/s 11A of Industrial Disputes Act to direct reinstatement, Labour Court should take into consideration all relevant factors.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.16
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.25(f), S.11(a)
(A) The case centers on the application of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the mandatory requirements for valid retrenchment, and Section 11A of the same Act, which empowers the Labour Court to modify awards and direct reinstatement. The court examined whether the failure to comply with Section 25F automatically warrants reinstatement after a significant lapse of time. Furthermore, the court considered the constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that appointments to statutory corporations must adhere to recruitment rules and ensure equality of opportunity in public employment, particularly when the vacancy is regular.
(B) The court held that while a Labour Court has the jurisdiction to order reinstatement under Section 11A, such discretionary relief must be granted by considering all attending circumstances, including the nature of the appointment (temporary), the length of service, the delay in raising the industrial dispute, and the constitutional validity of the initial appointment.
Facts of the case:
A workman appointed on a temporary basis was terminated after approximately one year of service. After a delay of about 12 years, the workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination. The Labour Court found the termination illegal due to non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and ordered reinstatement with back-wages from the date the dispute was raised. The High Court upheld this decision.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the respondent was a temporary employee and there was no evidence that the appointment followed prescribed recruitment rules or complied with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court found it unjust to order reinstatement after more than 30 years from the date of termination, noting that the long delay in raising the dispute and the temporary nature of the job made reinstatement inappropriate.
Issues:
Whether the order of reinstatement and back-wages granted by the Labour Court was justified given the long delay in raising the dispute and the temporary nature of the employment.
Ratio Decidendi:
Discretionary relief of reinstatement should not be granted mechanically upon a finding of illegal retrenchment; the court must weigh factors such as the duration of the gap in service, the nature of the appointment, and the adherence to constitutional norms of recruitment. In cases of extreme delay, monetary compensation is a more equitable remedy than reinstatement.
Result:
The order for reinstatement and back-wages was set aside, and the appellant was directed to pay a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent.
(A) The case centers on the application of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the mandatory requirements for valid retrenchment, and Section 11A of the same Act, which empowers the Labour Court to modify awards and direct reinstatement. The court examined whether the failure to comply with Section 25F automatically warrants reinstatement after a significant lapse of time. Furthermore, the court considered the constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that appointments to statutory corporations must adhere to recruitment rules and ensure equality of opportunity in public employment, particularly when the vacancy is regular.
(B) The court held that while a Labour Court has the jurisdiction to order reinstatement under Section 11A, such discretionary relief must be granted by considering all attending circumstances, including the nature of the appointment (temporary), the length of service, the delay in raising the industrial dispute, and the constitutional validity of the initial appointment.
Facts of the case:
A workman appointed on a temporary basis was terminated after approximately one year of service. After a delay of about 12 years, the workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination. The Labour Court found the termination illegal due to non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and ordered reinstatement with back-wages from the date the dispute was raised. The High Court upheld this decision.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the respondent was a temporary employee and there was no evidence that the appointment followed prescribed recruitment rules or complied with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court found it unjust to order reinstatement after more than 30 years from the date of termination, noting that the long delay in raising the dispute and the temporary nature of the job made reinstatement inappropriate.
Issues:
Whether the order of reinstatement and back-wages granted by the Labour Court was justified given the long delay in raising the dispute and the temporary nature of the employment.
Ratio Decidendi:
Discretionary relief of reinstatement should not be granted mechanically upon a finding of illegal retrenchment; the court must weigh factors such as the duration of the gap in service, the nature of the appointment, and the adherence to constitutional norms of recruitment. In cases of extreme delay, monetary compensation is a more equitable remedy than reinstatement.
Result:
The order for reinstatement and back-wages was set aside, and the appellant was directed to pay a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant before us is a Corporation constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act. The respondent was appointed w.e.f. 20.4.1974 on temporary basis. His services were terminated on 23.07.1975. He is said to have been paid one months salary in lieu of notice. Some allegations had also been made that he committed misconduct.
4. He raised an industrial dispute on or about 14.9.1986 which was referred to for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Agra. The industrial dispute referred by the appropriate Government for its adjudication by the Labour Court reads as under:
"That the act of the employer in terminating the service of their workman Man Singh s/o Sher Singh, post Conductor, vide order dated 23.03.1975 is proper and/or legal. If not then to what relief/compensation is the concerned workman entitled for and with what further details."
5. On a finding that in retrenching the respondent the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court although set aside the order of termination of the services of the respondent but granted back-wages only from 1986. The High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant refused to interfere therewith.
6. The Labour Court indisputably had the jurisdiction to pass an award directing reinstatement of the respondent in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. While exercising the said power, however, the Labour Court should have taken into consideration all relevant factors. The respondent does not dispute that he got employment only for about a year during the period 24.4.1974 to 23.7.1975. There is nothing on record to show that he was employed in accordance with the recruitment rules framed by the Appellant Corporation. No material has also been brought on record to show that the vacancy was a regular one or in filling up of the said vacancy the constitutional requirements as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India were complied with.
7. The respondent admittedly raised a dispute in 1986, i.e. after a period of about 12 years. It may be true that in an appropriate case, as has been done by the Labour Court, delay in raising the dispute would have resulted in rejection of his claim for back-wages for the period during which the workman remains absent as has been held by this Court in Gurmal Singh vs. Principal, Government College of Education and Ors., [2000 (9) SCC 496]. But the discretionary relief, in our opinion, must be granted upon taking into consideration all attending circumstances. The appellant is a statutory Corporation. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent was appointed on a temporary basis, it was unlikely that he remained unemployed for such a long time. In any event, it would be wholly unjust at this distance of time i.e. after a period of more than 30 years, to direct reinstatement of the respondent in service. Unfortunately, the Labour Court or the High Court did not consider these aspects of the matter.
8. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that in stead and place of the direction for reinstatement of the respondent together with back-wages from 1986, interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to him. Similar orders, we may place on record, have been passed by this Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Ghyan Chand, (C.A.No.3214/2006), State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Arjunlal Rajak [2006 (2) SCALE 610], Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corporation) vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [2006 (5) SCALE 145] and Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Mamni, [2006 (5) SCALE 164].
9. We direct the appellant to pay the aforementioned amount to the respondent within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till the date of actual payment. This appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. The parties shall pay and bear their own costs.
Appeal allowed accordingly.
****************