Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the State of Uttarakhand against the High Court's order directing reinstatement of a daily wage worker (Beldar) who had worked for about one year from June 1986 to May 1987 in the State PWD Department. The worker raised a dispute after 25 years, and the Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000 in lieu of reinstatement. The High Court modified this to reinstatement without back wages. The Supreme Court, relying on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal and District Development Officer vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia, held that for daily wage workers, reinstatement is not automatic and monetary compensation is appropriate, especially given the long delay. The Court set aside the High Court's order and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000, payable within three months.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Daily Wage Worker - Reinstatement - Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Where a daily wage worker worked for about one year and raised dispute after 25 years, the Supreme Court held that reinstatement is not automatic and monetary compensation is appropriate - The Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 in full and final settlement (Paras 10-15).
B) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Procedural defect in termination does not automatically entitle reinstatement with back wages for daily wage workers - Compensation is adequate relief (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in directing reinstatement of a daily wage worker whose termination was found illegal, or whether monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed in part. Impugned orders of High Court set aside. Labour Court award modified: compensation enhanced from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 1,00,000, payable within three months.
Law Points
- Reinstatement not automatic for daily wage workers
- monetary compensation appropriate in lieu of reinstatement
- Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- delay in raising dispute relevant factor
Case Details
Civil Appeal Nos. 124-125 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 10815-10816 of 2017)
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra
Vishwa Pal Singh (for appellants), Pankaj Miglani (for respondent)
State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against High Court order directing reinstatement of a daily wage worker.
Remedy Sought
State sought setting aside of High Court order directing reinstatement; worker sought reinstatement with back wages.
Filing Reason
State challenged High Court's modification of Labour Court award from compensation to reinstatement.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court awarded Rs. 30,000 compensation; High Court directed reinstatement without back wages; review dismissed.
Issues
Whether reinstatement should be granted to a daily wage worker who worked for about one year and raised dispute after 25 years.
Whether monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): The High Court erred in directing reinstatement; the case is covered by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal where compensation was held appropriate.
Respondent (Worker): Sought reinstatement as per High Court order.
Ratio Decidendi
For daily wage workers, reinstatement is not automatic upon finding termination illegal; monetary compensation is appropriate, especially when the worker has no right to regularization and there is a long delay in raising the dispute.
Judgment Excerpts
In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by the two decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 and District Development Officer and Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia (2018) 12 SCC 298.
It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases.
Here is also a case where the respondent claimed to have worked as daily wager hardly for a period of one year or so in PWD of the State; Secondly, he had no right to claim regularization; Thirdly, he had no right to continue as daily wager and lastly, the dispute was raised by the respondent (workman) almost after 25 years of the alleged termination before the Labour Court.
Procedural History
Labour Court awarded Rs. 30,000 compensation (25.02.2015). High Court modified to reinstatement without back wages (24.11.2015). Review dismissed (27.06.2016). State appealed to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 11A, Section 25F
- Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
