Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a dispute between the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (appellant) and two daily wage workers (respondents) who were engaged in 1971 and 1973. Their services were terminated in 1979, but a Labour Court Award dated 07.12.1995 declared the termination illegal and directed their reinstatement with back wages. The respondents later filed an application under Section 6H(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming salary for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.05.2018, alleging they were not taken back but were paid only up to 31.12.2014. The Deputy Labour Commissioner allowed their claim, ordering payment of ₹6,53,302/- each. The High Court upheld this order. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents were engaged in 1971 and 1973, and presuming they were at least 18 years old at entry, they would have attained the age of 60 years by 2013 and 2015 respectively, thus superannuating before the claimed period. The Court held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner and High Court erred in ignoring this factual aspect, and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Superannuation - Daily Wage Workers - Presumption of Age - The respondents, engaged in 1971 and 1973, were presumed to be at least 18 years old at entry, thus attaining age 60 by 2013 and 2015 respectively. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and High Court erred in awarding salary for 2015-2018 ignoring this fact. Held that the award of salary beyond superannuation was unsustainable. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents were entitled to salary for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.05.2018 under the Labour Court Award dated 07.12.1995, given their likely superannuation by that time.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2023 of the High Court and order dated 07.12.1995 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner are set aside. Pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Superannuation age
- Daily wage workers
- Industrial dispute award
- Computation of age
- Presumption of majority
Case Details
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14303 of 2021 (as per High Court writ petition number)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harsh Som, Adv. Mr. Ravish Chandra Pathak, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR Mr. Haraprasad Sahu, Adv.
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd.
Two daily wage workers (names not mentioned)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order confirming Deputy Labour Commissioner's direction to pay salary to daily wage workers for a period after their likely superannuation.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of the High Court order and the Deputy Labour Commissioner's order directing payment of ₹6,53,302/- to each respondent.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the orders on the ground that the respondents had superannuated before the claimed period and were not entitled to salary.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court Award dated 07.12.1995 held termination illegal and directed reinstatement with benefits. Deputy Labour Commissioner order dated 05.04.2021 directed payment for 2015-2018. High Court dismissed writ petition on 20.02.2023.
Issues
Whether the respondents were entitled to salary for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.05.2018 under the Labour Court Award.
Whether the Deputy Labour Commissioner and High Court erred in ignoring the fact that the respondents would have superannuated by 2013-2015.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the respondents, engaged in 1971 and 1973, would have attained age 60 by 2013 and 2015 respectively, and thus were not entitled to salary beyond superannuation.
Respondents claimed they were 55 years old in 2018 and entitled to continue till 2023, but this was rejected as unbelievable given their entry ages.
Ratio Decidendi
Daily wage workers engaged in 1971 and 1973 are presumed to be at least 18 years old at entry, thus attaining superannuation age of 60 by 2013 and 2015 respectively. Any claim for salary beyond that period is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
If that be so, they would attain the age of 60 years in 2013 and 2015 respectively.
Accepting their claim would mean that they were aged about 8 years and 10 years respectively when they entered the service of the appellant, which is quite unbelievable.
Procedural History
Labour Court Award dated 07.12.1995 in ID No. 159 of 1990 declared termination illegal. Respondents filed application under Section 6H(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was allowed by Deputy Labour Commissioner on 05.04.2021. Appellant challenged this in Writ C No. 14303 of 2021 before Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), which dismissed the writ on 20.02.2023. Appellant then appealed to Supreme Court by special leave.
Acts & Sections
- Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 6H(1)
