BHUVNESH KUMAR DWIVEDI versus M/S HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 1080 · Decided: 25-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 1080 
BHUVNESH KUMAR DWIVEDI 
v. 
M/S HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.4883-4884 of 2014) 
APRIL 25, 2014 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws - Interference with order of Labour Court I 
Industrial tribunal - Jurisdiction of High Court - Held: High 
C Court can interfere with an order of the Tribunal only on the 
procedural level and in cases, where decision of the lower 
courts was arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles 
- High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before 
the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour 
D Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence 
illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the 
conclusion on facts - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 226 
and 227 - Judicial review. 
Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing 
E Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192: 2010 (1) SCR 591; Heinz 
India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 443: 2012 (3) 
SCR 898 and Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur 
(2011) 6 SCC 584: 2011 (4) SCR 867 - relied on. 
F 
Labour Laws - Termination - Legality - Respondent-
employer terminated the services of appellant-workman as per 
practice with the reason 'sanction expired' - Plea of appellant 
that the termination was a clear case of retrenchment as 
opposed to the provision in s.6N of the UPID Act which is in 
G pari materia with s. 25N of the ID" Act - Held: Appellant 
rendered continuous service for six continuous years (save 
the artificially imposed break) as provided uls.258 of Act and 
could therefore be subjected to retrenchment only through the 
procedure mentioned in the ID Act or the UPID Act (the State 
H 
1080 
BHUVNESH KUMAR DWIVEDI v. HINDALCO 
1081 
INDUSTRIES LTD. 
Act in pari materia) - Action of respondent was a clear case 
A 
of retrenchment of appellant, which required compliance with 
the mandatory requirement of s. 6-N of UPID Act - Since the 
same was not complied with, therefore, order of retrenchment 
was rendered void ab initio in Jaw - s.2(oo)(bb) of the l.D. Act 
not attracted in the case herein - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
B 
- s.2(oo)(bb) and 25N - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 - s.6N and 25B. 
Labour Laws -
Termination -
Entitlement for 
reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential 
reliefs - Held: Termination of appellant being found illegal C 
and void ab initio, he was entitled to reinstatement - Burden 
of proof that appellant was gainfully employed post 
termination of his service was on respondent-employer -
However, claim of respondent that appellant was gainfully 
employed somewhere was vague and could not be D 
considered and accepted - Appellant accordingly entitled to 
full back wages from the date of termination till the date of 
reinstatement - High Court erred by exceeding its jurisdiction 
u!Art.227 of the Constitution in holding that appellant in fact, 
resigned by not joining his duty as a 'badly' worker and also 
E 
awarding that retrenchment compensation to the tune of 
1, 00, 0001- will do justice to appellant without assigning 
reasons, which was wholly unsustainable in Jaw. 
U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Om Prakash 
F 
Upadhyay (2002) 10 SCC 89; State Bank of India v. Shri N. 
Sundara Money AIR 1976 SC 1111: 1976 (3) SCR 160; 
Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division 
No. 1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497; Shiv Nandan Mah to v. 
State of Bihar & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 626; General Manager, 
G 
Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591: 
2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 569 and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. 
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324: 
2013 (9) SCR 1 - relied on. 
H 
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. In the case at hand, the periods of service 
of the appellant extended to close to 6 years save the 
artificial breaks made by the respondent with an oblique 
8 motive so as to retain the appellant as a temporary 
worker and deprive the appellant of his statutory right of 
permanent worker status. The aforesaid conduct of the 
respondent perpetuates 'unfair labour practice as 
defined under Section 2(ra) of the l.D. Act, which is not 
permissible in view of Sections 25T and 25U of the l.D. 
C. Act read with entry ~t Serial No. 10 in the Vth Schedule 
to the l.D. Act regarding unfair labour practices. The 
respondent, in order to mitigate its conduct towards the 
appellant has cla

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