LexASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. & ANR. versus GITAM SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 1 S.C.R. 679 ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. & ANR. v. GITAM SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 8415 of 2009) JANUARY 31, 2013. [R.M. LODHA AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] Labour Laws: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - 25-F - Termination of workman - Who worked only for eight months as a daily wager - Courts below holding the termination to be in contravention A B c of s. 25-F and directing reinstatement with continuity of service with 25% back wages- On appeal, held: In a case of wrongful · 0 termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, the award of reinstatement is not proper - Award of compensation would be in consonance with the demand of justice - Compensation of Rs. 50, 0001- awarded. The question for consideration in the present appeal E filed by the management was where a workman had worked only for eight months as a daily wager and his termination has been held to be in contravention of s. 25- F of Industrial disputes Act, 1947, whether the direction to the employer for reinstatement with continuity of F service and 25% back wages was legally sustainable. . Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In a case of wrongful termination ·of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, the award of G reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to 679 H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 1 S.C.R. A keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. [Para 29] B [695-E-G] 2. In the instant case, the workman was engaged as daily wager and he worlced hardly for eight months. The labour court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the C labour court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court also erred in not considering the above aspect at all. The award directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in the facts D and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. Compensation of Rs. 50,0001- by the appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends of justice. [Para 31] [696-F-G; 697-A] E Assam Oil Company Limited, New Delhi v. Its Workmen AIR 1960 SC 1264: 1960 SCR 457; Mis. Hindustan Steels • Ltd., Rourke/av. A.K. Roy and Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 513: 1970 (3) SCR 343; Mis. Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri P.P. Chopra (1969) 3 SCC 653; The Management of F Panitole Tea Estate v. The Workmen (1971) 1 SCC 742: 1971 (3) SCR 774; Mis. Tulsidas Paul v. The Second Labour Court, WB. and Ors.(1972) 4 SCC 205; Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 100: 2005 (2) SCR 797; Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal Corpn.) v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 127: 2006 (1) G Suppl. SCR 681; Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar (2006) 5 SCC 173: 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 914; Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni (2006) 9 SCC 434: 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 638; Regional Manager, SB/ v. Mahatma Mishra (2006) 13 SCC H ASST. ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN DEV. CORP. v. 681 GITAM SINGH 727: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 216; Haryana Urban A Development Authority v. Om Pal (2007) 5 SCC 742:s 2007 (4) SCR 1091 ; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C.Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353: 2007 (3) SCR 114; Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748: 2001' (4) SCR 918; Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, B Gajraula and Anr. (2008) 1 SCC 575: 2007 (13) SCR 672; Telecom District Manager and Ors. v. Keshab Deb (2008) 8 SCC 402: 2008 (7) SCR 835; Talwara Co-operative Credit and Service Society Limited v. Sushi/ Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486: 2008 (14) SCR 53; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State c Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr. (2009)15 SCC 327:2009 (10) SCR 908; Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Laxmi Kant Gupta (2009) 16 SCC 562: 2008 (13) SCR 1051; Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 773; D Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558 - reli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.