STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. versus RAJ KUMAR

[2019] 1 S.C.R.

ASTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

RAJ KUMAR

(Civil Appeal Nos. 124-125 of 2019)

BJANUARY 07, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Labour Laws – Re-instatement – Termination of daily wager– Dispute raised after 25 years – Respondent-worker worked asbeldar in the State PWD department as daily wager for about aCyear and was terminated – Labour court awarded Rs.30,000 asmonetary compensation in full and final settlement against his claimfor reinstatement – High Court modified the award and directedState to reinstate without awarding him any back wages – On appeal,held: Respondent having worked as daily wager had no right toDclaim regularization or right to continue as daily wager – Disputewas raised almost 25 years of alleged termination – The case of therespondent squarely fell in the category of cases discussed in BharatSanchar Nigam Ltd. – Monetary compensation of Rs.1 lakh awardedto the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse toEthe powers under s.11-A of the Act in place of Rs.30,000/- awardedby the Labour Court – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947– s.11-A.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

FHELD: 1. The respondent claimed to have worked as dailywager hardly for period of one year or so in PWD of the State;Secondly, he had no right to claim regularization; Thirdly, he hadno right to continue as daily wager and lastly, the dispute wasraised by the respondent (workman) almost after 25 years of thealleged termination before the Labour Court. The case of theGrespondent would squarely fall in the category of cases discussedby this Court in Para 34 of the judgment rendered in BharatSanchar Nigam Ltd. It is just and reasonable to award sum ofRs.1,00,000/- to the respondent in lieu of his right to claim re-instatement and back wages in full and final satisfaction of this

dispute in place of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Labour Court.[Paras 12, 13 and 15][98-C-D, G]

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (2014) 7SCC 177 : [2013] 16 SCR 1023; District DevelopmentOfficer and Anr. v. Satish Kantilal Amerelia (2018) 12SCC 298 : [2017] 12 SCR 414 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2013] 16 SCR 1023referred toPara 10

[2017] 12 SCR 414referred toPara 10

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.124-125 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2015 of the High Courtof Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 1116 (M/S) of 2015 andorder dated 27.06.2016 in Review Application MCC No. 333 of 2016.

Vishwa Pal Singh, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Advs. for the Appellants.

Pankaj Miglani, Dhaval Malhotra, for M/s. Lambat AndAssociates, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orderdated 24.11.2015 in W.P. No.1116 of 2015 and dated 27.06.2016 inRAMCC No. 333 of 2016 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand atNainital.

3. By impugned order dated 24.11.2015 passed in writ petition,the High Court modified the award dated 25.02.2015 in Workman DisputesCase No.45 of 2014 by which the Labour Court, Haridwar had awardedcompensation of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent in lieu of reinstatementand instead directed the State (appellant herein) to reinstate therespondent (worker) without awarding to him any back wages. TheHigh Court also granted liberty to the State to proceed against therespondent (worker) in accordance with the provisions of the UttarPradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “theAct”). Against this order, the State filed review application before the

AHigh Court. The review was dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2016which has now given rise to two special leave to appeals by Statequestioning the legality and correctness of the main order dated 24.11.2015and review order dated 27.06.2016 by way of special leave before thisCourt.

B4. It is the case of the respondent (worker) that he worked asBeldar in the State PWD Department (Haridwar) as daily wager forabout year from June 1986 to May 1987 and thereafter his serviceswere brought to an end by the State without following the due procedureprescribed in law.

C5. After almost 25 years of his alleged termination, the respondentfiled petition in the Labour Court, Haridwar (45/2014) questioning thelegality and correctness of his termination.

6. By award 25.02.2015, the Labour Court awarded monetarycompensation of Rs.30,000/- in full and final satisfaction to the respondentD(workman) against his claim of reinstatement and all consequentialbenefits arising therefrom.

7. The respondent, therefore, felt aggrieved and filed writ petitionin the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. By impugned order, theHigh Court modified the award of the Labour Court and instead directedEreinstatement of the respondent in the State services but without paymentof any back wages to him which has given rise to filing of the presentappeals by way of special leave by the State before this Court.

8. Heard Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, learned counsel for the appellantsand Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part andmodify the impugned order to the extent indicated infra.

10. In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by the two decisionsof this Court rendered in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam LimitedGvs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 and District Development Officerand Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia (2018) 12 SCC 298.

11. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held in the caseof Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra):

“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgmentsthat the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement withfull back wages, when the termination is found to be illegalis not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be aposition where services of regular/permanent workmanare terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way ofvictimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when itcomes to the case of termination of daily-wage workerand where the termination is found illegal because of aprocedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in takingthe view that in such cases reinstatement with back wagesis not automatic and instead the workman should be givenmonetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice.Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement insuch cases are obvious. It is trite law that when thetermination is found to be illegal because of non-paymentof retrenchment compensation and notice pay asmandatorily required under Section 25-F of the IndustrialDisputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always opento the management to terminate the services of thatemployee by paying him the retrenchment compensation.Since such workman was working on daily-wage basis andeven after he is reinstated, he has no right to seekregularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)17].Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has noright to continue even as daily-wage worker, no usefulpurpose is going to be served in reinstating such workmanand he can be given monetary compensation by the Courtitself inasmuch as if he is terminated again afterreinstatement, he would receive monetary compensationonly in the form of retrenchment compensation and noticepay. In such situation, giving the relief of reinstatement,that too after long gap, would not serve any purpose.“35. We would, however, like to add caveat here. Theremay be cases where termination of daily-wage worker isfound to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as

ABC

unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of lastcome first go viz. while retrenching such worker dailywage juniors to him were retained. There may also be asituation that persons junior to him were regularised undersome policy but the workman concerned terminated. Insuch circumstances, the terminated worker should not bedenied reinstatement unless there are some other weightyreasons for adopting the course of grant of compensationinstead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatementshould be the rule and only in exceptional cases for thereasons stated to be in writing, such relief can be denied.”

12. Here is also case where the respondent claimed to haveworked as daily wager hardly for period of one year or so in PWD ofthe State; Secondly, he had no right to claim regularization; Thirdly, hehad no right to continue as daily wager and lastly, the dispute was raisedby the respondent (workman) almost after 25 years of the allegedDtermination before the Labour Court.

13. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the case of therespondent would squarely fall in the category of cases discussed bythis Court in Para 34 of the judgment rendered in Bharat SancharNigam Ltd. (supra).

14. In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the consideredview that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump summonetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction ofhis claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by takingrecourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laidFdown by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited’s case (supra).

15. Having regard to the totality of the facts taken note of supra,we consider it just and reasonable to award sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.One lakh) to the respondent in lieu of his right to claim re-instatementand back wages in full and final satisfaction of this dispute in place ofGRs.30,000/- awarded by the Labour Court. Only to this extent we modifythe award of the Labour Court in quantum of award of compensation byenhancing it from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,00,000 (one lakh).

16. Let the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- be paid by theappellant(State) to the respondent within three months from the date ofreceipt of this judgment.H

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed andare allowed in part. The impugned orders of the High Court in the writpetition and the review application are set aside. The Award of theLabour Court dated 25.02.2015 is accordingly modified to the extentindicated above.

Devika Gujral

Appeal partly allowed.