Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.25B – Continuous service – Termination – Not justified – Appellant-workman was appointed as a watchman by Respondent society-managment – Terminated – Labour Court held that the appellant’s termination was illegal, directed reinstatement with continuity but without backwages – Single Judge affirmed the award – Division Bench rejected management’s appeal – SLP, matter remitted for fresh consideration – Division Bench set aside the direction to reinstate the appellant and instead awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.1 lakh – On appeal, held: Concededly, the appellant had worked for over 10 years – Both the Labour Court and the Single Judge concluded that his claim for having continuously worked within the meaning of s.25B stood proved – Division Bench has not interfered with the factual findings, therefore, the direction to substitute the relief of reinstatement with one for lumpsum payment was not warranted – No perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the Labour Court and the Single Judge in directing the appellant’s reinstatement – Appellant be reinstated, he is also entitled to backwages for a period of two years immediately preceding, i.e., from 01.01.20 to 01.01.22 – Impugned judgment set aside – Direction of the Labour Court and the Single Judge for continuity of service is also restored. Labour Law – Reinstatement of employee, backwages – Restitutionary approach – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The record indicates that both the Labour Court and the Single Judge elaborately considered the depositions of the parties as well as the evidence on the record. In fact, the appellant workman had applied under the RTI Act, eliciting relevant documents to substantiate his claim that employees junior to him, were retained in the service. The management was unable to refute the material on record. On the other hand, it claimed the inability to produce the relevant documents, i.e., the muster roll for the later period of the appellant’s service. Concededly, the appellant had worked for over 10 years. In the absence of precise details as to the so-called periods when the appellant had not been employed – as alleged by the management, both the Labour Court and the Single Judge concluded that his claim for having continuously worked within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act stood proved. Furthermore, the workman had deposed that employees junior to him were retained in the service, contrary to Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the circumstances, given the fact that the direction of the Labour Court was only to reinstate but not pay backwages, the Division Bench’s substitution of that relief is not based on any known principle. In the present case, the Labour Court had rendered its award on 31.08.2010; the Single Judge rejected the management’s writ petition on 04.05.2011. The management’s appeal was, in the first instance, rejected on 16.01.2014; however, it approached this Court by filing special leave petition, which was allowed on 29.04.2016. It was thereafter – 5 years later, that the impugned judgment was delivered. Having regard to these factors, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant workman could not have been made to suffer on account of the management’s obdurate attempt to have the relief set aside. Furthermore, the Division Bench’s impugned judgment has not interfered with the factual findings. Therefore, the direction to substitute the relief of reinstatement with one for lumpsum payment was not warranted in the circumstances of this case. There is no perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the Labour Court and the single judge in directing the appellant’s reinstatement. Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, the denial of backwages, has resulted in punishing him, although the delay is attributable to the judicial process. However, the respondent management cannot be absolved of the primary responsibility in its litigative proclivity. In these circumstances, the appellant shall be entitled to backwages for a period of two years immediately preceding, i.e., from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant workman shall be reinstated in the services of the respondent within six weeks from today. The direction of the Labour Court and the Single Judge for continuity of service is also restored. [Paras 9, 10, 14 and 15][858G-H; 859-A-E; 863-C-E] Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd.v. Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Others (1979) 2 SCC
80 : [1979] 1 SCR 563; Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Others (2013) 10 SCC 324 : [2013] 9 SCR 1; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 : [2013]
16 SCR 1023 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.