Labour Laws – Public authority – Termination of daily-wager – Termination found illegal due to procedural defect, namely, violation of mandatory provisions of s.25F – Appellant-daily wager was reinstated after the award of the Labour Court – High Court set aside the award – On appeal, held: Appellant could not adduce convincing evidence to establish retention of junior workers, as alleged by him – No finding of unfair trade practice, as such – In such circumstances, reinstatement cannot be automatic – Transgression of s.25F being established, suitable compensation to appellant would be the appropriate remedy – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.25F.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. This is a case where it is found that, though the appellant had worked for 240 days, appellant’s service was terminated, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The authority involved in this case, apparently, is a public authority. At the same time, it is common case that the appellant was a daily wager and the appellant was not a permanent employee. It is relevant to note that, in the award answering Issue No.1, which was, whether the termination of the appellant’s service was justified and in order, and if not, what was the amount of back wages he was entitled to, it was found, inter alia, that the appellant could not adduce convincing evidence to establish retention of junior workers. There is no finding of unfair trade practice, as such. In such circumstances, the principle, which is enunciated by this Court, in the decision, which is referred to in Raj Kumar case, would be more appropriate to follow. In other words, it is found that reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of Section 25F being established, suitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy. [Para 6][107-C-E]
1.2. In such circumstance, noticing that, though the appellant was reinstated after the award of the Labour Court in 2006, the appellant has not been working since 2009 following the impugned order of the High Court, and also taking note of the fact that the appellant was, in all likelihood, employed otherwise, also the interest of justice would be best subserved with modifying the impugned order and directing that in place of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), as lumpsum compensation, appellant be paid Rs.3.25 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand), as compensation, taking into consideration also the fact that the appellant had already been paid Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation. [Para 7][107-F-H]
State of Uttarakhand and another v. Raj Kumar, (2019)
14 SCC 353 : [2019] 1 SCR 94 – relied on.
Ajaypal Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 6 SCC 321 ; Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 ; and Durgapur Casual Workers Union andothers v. Food Corporation of India and others, (2015) 5 SCC 786 : [2014] 12 SCR 377 – referred to.
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.