Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
s. 11A – Termination of services of casual worker, who had worked for just 240 days – Labour Court set aside the termination order holding it as illegal and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service – Single Judge of High Court set aside the award of Labour Court – Division Bench of High Court restored the award of Labour Court – On appeal, held: In view of the facts that the workman was a casual worker and had rendered service for a very short duration and that there was no evidence as to whether he was gainfully employed, order of reinstatement alongwith payment of back wages and continuity of service was wrong – Labour Court in exercise of powers u/s. 11A should have awarded lump sum compensation – The award is modified to the extent that in lieu of right to claim reinstatement, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lump sum is granted – Labour Laws.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The respondent was a casual worker and hardly worked for one year (10.6.1976 to 30.7.1977). 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 11-A of the Act, rather than to direct his reinstatement
with
all
consequential
benefits.
[Paras 13 and 14][1196-A-C]
2. The impugned order and the award of the Labour Court is modified. The appellant is directed 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. 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 appellant under Section 17-B of the Act. [Paras 16, 17][1198-F-H]
Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 773; Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Ors. v. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 : [2013] 1 SCR 679 – 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.