B.S.N.L. versus BHURUMAL

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 1023 · Decided: 11-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 16 S.C.R. 1023 
B.S.N.L. 
v. 
BHURUMAL 
(Civil Appeal No.10957 of 2013) 
DECEMBER 11, 2013 
[K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K.SIKRI, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.25F - Retrenchment -
A 
B 
Of daily wage worker -
Industrial dispute raised -
Management denied employer-employee relationship -
C 
Industrial Tribunal held that the workman was working under 
the Management and his services were illegally terminated 
and awarded his reinstatement With back wages - Award of 
Tribunal confirmed by High Court - Held: Termination of 
workman is rightly held to be illegal being violative of s.25F D 
- In the case of illegal termination of a daily wage worker, 
reinstatement with back wages is not automatic - Instead 
monetary compensation would serve the ends of justice -
However, where the persons junior to the terminated workmen 
are regularized, the workman car-mot be denied reinstatement . E 
- In such cases reinstatement should be rule and denial 
thereof should be only in exceptional cases - In the facts of 
the present case, grant of compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs in lieu 
of reinstatement wou(d serve the interest of justice. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 136 and 226 - Powers 
under- Scope of- Held: Findings offacts not to be interfered, 
in exercise of powers u!Arts.136 or 226, unless such findings 
are totally perverse and based on no evidence - Insufficiency 
of evidence is not a ground to interfere. 
The respondent-workman raised an industrial 
dispute alleging his wrongful termination by the 
appellant-management. His case was that he was 
working with the appellant as a .Lineman on daily wages, 
1023 
F 
G 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A for 15 years. He got electric shock while working and got 
hospitalized. Thereafter, he was not permitted to join the 
duty. The appellant denied employer-employee 
relationship between them. The Industrial Tribunal 
concluded that the respor:ident was directly working 
B under the administrative control of the appellant as a 
Lineman and his services were illegally terminated and 
directed reinstatement of the respondent ~ith back-
wages. High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the 
appellant, upholding the order of the Tribunal . Hence the 
c present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The findings recorded by ~he Industrial 
Tribunal are findings of fact. Such findings are not to be 
D interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the 
Constitution or by this Court under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. Interference is permissible only in case 
these findings are totally perverse or based on no 
evidence. Insufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground 
E to interdict these findings as it is not the function of this 
court to reappreciate the evidence. [Para 15] [1037-A-C] 
2.1. It is apparent from the diaries produced by the 
respondent that the respondent had worked for the 
appellant. These diaries are perused and examined by the 
F Industrial_ Tribunal on the basis of which it is observed 
that the diaries were maintained in an ordinary course of 
business and were genuine. There is no reason to 
disbelieve these diaries and the plea of the appellant that 
these are self serving documents does not cut any ice. It 
G is a matter of common knowledge that the period in 
question was a period when frequent disruption in the 
functioning of the telephones was a normal feature and 
the Telephone Department used to receive numerous 
such complaints. Linemen were deputed to visit the 
H places where the telephones have gone out of order to 
B.S.N.L v. BHURUMAL 
1025 
attend those complaints. There was a practice of giving 
A 
one lineman various telephone numbers which he was 
supposed to attend. The respondent .had maintained the 
diaries where he noted down those numbers, and 
attended the same on day to day basis. Diaries for the last 
2 years i.e. 2001 and 2002 have been produced. These 
B 
diaries prove that the respondent had been doing the 
work for the appellant and that too as a lineman. [Para 
16] [1037-E-H; 1038-A-B] 
2.2. Once, it is concluded that the respondent had 
C 
been doing the work of the appellant, it was for the 
appellant to prove as to who was the contractor to whom 
the work was awarded and that contractor had recruited 
the respondent. No such evidence is produced by the 
appellant. Moreover, the appellant has itself accepted the 
fact that the work of a lineman was not given on contract D 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.