Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the Deputy Executive Engineer (State of Gujarat) against a High Court order upholding a Labour Court award directing reinstatement of a daily wager without back wages. The respondent worker claimed he worked for 18 years as a daily wager in the R&B Department, while the State contended he worked only intermittently for about 2 years from 1979 to 1981. The worker raised a dispute before the Labour Court almost 15 years after his alleged termination. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement without back wages, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court, relying on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal and District Development Officer v. Satish Kantilal Amerelia, held that for daily wagers terminated due to procedural defects, reinstatement is not automatic. Considering the worker's short service, lack of right to regularization, and the 15-year delay in raising the dispute, the Court found it appropriate to award lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the Labour Court award accordingly.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Daily Wager Termination - Reinstatement vs. Compensation - Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Where termination of a daily wager is found illegal due to procedural defect (non-compliance with Section 25F), reinstatement with back wages is not automatic; monetary compensation may be awarded instead, especially when the worker has no right to regularization and the dispute is raised after a long delay (Paras 9-14).
B) Industrial Law - Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Power to Modify Relief - The Labour Court and higher courts have discretion under Section 11A to award lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, considering the totality of facts (Para 13).
C) Industrial Law - Delay in Raising Dispute - Effect on Relief - A delay of 15 years in raising an industrial dispute is a relevant factor for denying reinstatement and awarding compensation instead (Paras 11, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a daily wager whose termination is found illegal due to procedural defect is entitled to reinstatement or should be granted monetary compensation instead
Final Decision
Appeal allowed in part. Impugned High Court order set aside. Labour Court award dated 09.05.2007 modified: instead of reinstatement, the respondent is awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant within three months, in full and final satisfaction of all claims.
Law Points
- Reinstatement not automatic for daily wagers
- monetary compensation appropriate for procedural violation of Section 25F
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- long delay in raising dispute relevant
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 5810 of 2009
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indu Malhotra
Ms. Jesal Wahi (for appellant), Mr. A.P. Mayee (for respondent)
Deputy Executive Engineer
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order upholding Labour Court award directing reinstatement of a daily wager without back wages
Remedy Sought
Appellant (State) sought setting aside of the High Court order and Labour Court award, or modification to award compensation instead of reinstatement
Filing Reason
Appellant felt aggrieved by the High Court's dismissal of its writ petition challenging the Labour Court's reinstatement order
Previous Decisions
Labour Court (Surendranagar) in LCS No.120/1994 directed reinstatement without back wages on 09.05.2007; High Court of Gujarat dismissed Special Civil Application No.19622 of 2007 on 05.12.2007
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Labour Court's award of reinstatement to a daily wager whose termination was found illegal due to procedural defect
Whether monetary compensation should be awarded in lieu of reinstatement considering the worker's short service, lack of regularization rights, and long delay in raising the dispute
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State) argued that the respondent worked only for about 2 years intermittently from 1979 to 1981 and was not entitled to reinstatement
Respondent (worker) claimed he rendered services for 18 years as a daily wager and his termination was illegal
Ratio Decidendi
In cases of termination of daily wagers found illegal due to procedural defects (violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act), reinstatement with back wages is not automatic. Courts may award monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, especially when the worker has no right to regularization, the service period is short, 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 was held to have worked as daily wager or muster role employee hardly for a few years... the dispute was raised by the respondent (workman) before the Labour Court almost after 15 years of his alleged termination.
We are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits.
Procedural History
Respondent raised dispute before Labour Court, Surendranagar (LCS No.120/1994) after 15 years of termination. Labour Court awarded reinstatement without back wages on 09.05.2007. State filed writ petition (Special Civil Application No.19622 of 2007) in Gujarat High Court, which was dismissed on 05.12.2007. State then filed civil appeal by special leave in Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No.5810 of 2009), which was allowed in part on 07.01.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25F, Section 11A
