Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by workmen (Gardeners) and the employer (Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam) against a High Court judgment modifying Labour Court awards. The workmen claimed they were engaged directly by the Nagar Nigam since 1998-1999, performing horticultural duties, but were terminated orally in July 2005 without notice or compensation, during pendency of conciliation proceedings. The Labour Court in some cases ordered reinstatement with 30% back wages, but in others dismissed claims finding contractual engagement. The High Court modified the relief, directing re-engagement on daily wages with minimum pay scale. The Supreme Court examined whether termination violated Section 6E (prohibition on altering conditions during conciliation) and Section 6N (retrenchment requirements) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Court found that the workmen were directly employed, had completed 240 days of service, and their termination during conciliation was illegal. It upheld reinstatement with 30% back wages for those covered by the favourable Labour Court awards, but denied regularization, stating it must follow constitutional process. The Court set aside the High Court's modification and restored the Labour Court's awards, with directions to consider regularization if vacancies exist.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Illegal Termination - Section 6E, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of workmen during pendency of conciliation proceedings without permission of conciliation officer is illegal and void - The court held that the employer violated Section 6E by terminating services while conciliation was pending, rendering the termination invalid (Paras 8-10). B) Industrial Disputes - Retrenchment - Section 6N, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination without notice or compensation amounts to illegal retrenchment - The court found that the workmen had completed 240 days of continuous service and their termination without compliance with Section 6N was illegal (Paras 11-13). C) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Daily wage workers performing same duties as regular employees are entitled to minimum of regular pay scale - The court directed payment of wages equivalent to minimum of regular pay scale for Gardeners, but not full regularization (Paras 14-16). D) Service Law - Regularization - Daily wagers cannot claim automatic regularization without following constitutional process - The court held that while reinstatement is justified, regularization must await availability of sanctioned posts and compliance with recruitment rules (Paras 17-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the appellant workmen during pendency of conciliation proceedings was illegal under Section 6E of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether they are entitled to reinstatement with back wages and regularization.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the workmen and dismissed the appeals of the employer. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Labour Court's awards dated 03.06.2011, directing reinstatement with 30% back wages. The Court held that termination during conciliation proceedings was illegal under Section 6E, and the workmen were entitled to reinstatement. However, regularization was not ordered, but the employer was directed to consider regularization if vacancies exist and constitutional requirements are met.
Law Points
- Section 6E of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 prohibits alteration of service conditions or discharge of workmen during pendency of conciliation proceedings without permission
- Section 6N requires notice and compensation for retrenchment
- principle of equal pay for equal work applies to daily wage workers performing same duties as regular employees
- regularization not automatic but may be considered if vacancies exist and constitutional requirements met
