LexASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, SUB-DIVISION, KOTA versus MOHAN LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 91 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN STATE A AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, SUB-DIVISION, KOTA v. MOHAN LAL (Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013) B AUGUST 16, 2013 [R.M. LODHA AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Labour Law: C Termination of services of workman - Industrial dispute raised belatedly - No objection as to delay raised - Reinstatement ordered by Labour Court holding that termination was in violation of s.25-F o ID Act - Held: Delay D in raising industrial dispute is an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view, notwithstanding whether or not such objection has been raised -- Legal position to be followed in case of non-compliance of s.25-F, emphasized - In the instant case, workman worked as a work- E charged employee for 286 days - Labour Court did not keep in view admitted delay of 6 years in. raising the industrial dispute by him - Judicial discretion exercised by Labour Court is, thus, flawed and unsustainable - In the circumstances, in lieu of reinstatement, compensation of Rs. 1 F lac shall be paid by employer to workman - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- s.25-F The services of the respondent-workman, who was engaged by the appellant-employer on 1.11.1984 as 'Mistri' on muster roll, were terminated on 18.2.1986, G without issuing one month's prior notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof or any retrenchment compensation to him. The workman raised an industrial dispute in 1992 and, ultimately, the Labour Court held his termination as 91 H 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A violative of s.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed his reinstatement with 30% back wages. The Single Judge of the High Court observed that the workman was not entitled to reinstatement as he raised the industrial dispute with a delay of six years, and B allowed Rs.5,000/- to be paid as compensation. However, the Division Bench of the High Court restored the award of the Labo~r Court. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court C HELD: 1.1 It has been held by this Court that non- compliance of provisions of s.25-F would not automatically lead to grant of relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service, and the Labour Court must take into consideration the relevant facts for D exercise of its discretion in granting the relief. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh's case that must be invariably followed, is that the Labour Court, before exercising its judicial discretion, has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner E of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. [para 8 and 20] [96-G; 97-A-B; 103-F-G] Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation F and Anr. v. Gitam Singh (201 J) 5 SCC 136; Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 681 = (2006) 5 SCC 127; Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar; 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 914 = (2006) 5 SCC 173; Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation G Ltd. v. Mamni 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 638 = (2006) 9 SCC 434; Ghaziabad Development Authority and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr. 2008 (2) SCR 1069 = (2008) 4 SCC 261; Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb 2008 (7) SCR 835 = (2008) 8 SCC 402; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture H Marketing Board; 2009 (10) SCR 908 = (2009) 15 SCC 327; ASSTT. ENGR. RAJASTHAN S. A. M. BOARD, KOTA 93 v. MOHAN LAL Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Laxmi Kant Gupta A 2008 (13) SCR 1051 = (2009) 16 SCC 562; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558; Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 773 • referred to. 1.2 Though, Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely B an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion C irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. Ajaib Singh, cannot be read as laying down an absolute proposition of law that where plea of delay is not raised by the employer, the delay in raising the industrial dispute by the workman pales into insignificance and the Labour Court will be unjustified in D taking th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.