DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER versus KUBERBHAI KANJIBHAI

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 07-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
63
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
v.
KUBERBHAI KANJIBHAI
(Civil Appeal No. 5810 of 2009)
JANUARY 07, 2019.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Labour Laws – Re-instatement – Termination of daily wager
– After 15 years of termination, he raised a dispute – Labour court
awarded reinstatement of respondent-worker in State services but
without awarding back wages to him – High Court dismissed State’s
writ petition and upheld the award of the labour court – On appeal,
held: The case of the respondent squarely fell in the category
discussed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam wherein the Supreme Court held
that no useful purpose would be served in re-instating a daily wager
and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself
inasmuch as, if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would
receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment
compensation and notice pay – Following the view held in Bharat
Sanchar Nigam case, a lump sum monetary compensation of Rs.1
lakh is awarded to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of
his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by
taking recourse to the powers under s.11A of the 1947 Act –
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.11A.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The respondent had worked as daily wager or
muster roll employee hardly for a few years in R & B of the State.
He had no right to claim regularization.  He had no right to
continue as daily wager. The dispute was raised by the respondent
(workman) before the Labour Court almost after 15 years of his
alleged termination. The case of the respondent would squarely
fall in the category of cases discussed  in Para 34 of the judgment
rendered in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. A lump sum monetary
compensation is awarded to the respondent in full and final
satisfaction of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential
benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the law laid down in Bharat
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 63
63
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
Sanchar Nigam Limited’s case. The respondent is awarded Rs.1
lakh in lieu of his right to claim re-instatement and back wages in
full and final satisfaction of this dispute. [Paras 11-14][67-B-E]
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (2014) 7
SCC 177 – relied on.
District Development Officer and Anr. v. Satish Kantilal
Amerelia (2018) 12 SCC 298 : [2017] 12 SCR 414 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2014) 7 SCC 177
relied on
Para 9
[2017] 12 SCR 414
referred to
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5810
of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2007 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 19622 of 2007.
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Aniruddha P. Mayee, Chirag Jain, A. Selvin Raja, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the final judgment and order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.19622
of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the
appellant herein.
2. By impugned order, the High Court upheld the award dated
09.05.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in LCS No.120/
1994 and directed the  appellant (State) herein to reinstate the respondent
(worker) without awarding to him  any back wages. Against this order,
the State felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal by way of special
leave before this Court.
3. It is the case of the respondent (worker) that he rendered his
services in the R & B Department of the State (Surendranagar) as a
daily wager for 18 years but his services were brought to an end by the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
65
State without following the due procedure prescribed in law.  However,
the case of the State was that the respondent(worker) worked hardly
for 2 years from 1979 to 1981 and that too intermittently and hence he
was not entitled to claim any relief of either reinstatement or other relief
under the labour laws.
4. After almost 15 years of his alleged termination, the respondent
raised a dispute before the Labour Court,  Surendranagar (LCS No.120/
1994) questioning the legality and correctness of his termination.
5. By award dated 09.05.2007, the Labour Court directed
reinstatement of the respondent in State services but without awarding
any back wages to him.
6. 

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