DEVINDER SINGH versus MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SANAUR

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 11-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 867 
DEVINDER SINGH 
v. 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SANAUR 
(Civil Appeal No. 3190 of 2011) 
APRIL 11, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947: 
A 
B 
ss. 2.(s}, 2(oo) and 25-F-'Workman' engaged on contract C 
basis - Termination of services of workman without complying 
with the provisions of s. 25-F - Labour Court ordering 
reinstatement without back wages - High Court setting aside 
reinstatement holding that the appointment was made without 
following recruitment rules and that it would not be in public 
interest to approve award of reinstatement after long lapse of D 
time - HELD: The source of employment, the method of 
recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract 
of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of 
payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a 
person is a workman within the meaning of s. 2(s) of the Act E 
- Further, the definition of workman also does not make any 
distinction between full time and part time employee or a 
person appointed on contract basis -
Once the test of 
employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of 
work is satisfied, the employee will fall within the definition of F 
'workman' - Delay in adjudication of dispute by Labour Court 
or the writ petition filed by employer cannot be made a ground 
to justify the gross illegalities committed by the employer in 
'terminating the services of the workman - Delay!Laches. 
s.25-F read with ss.2(s) and 2(oo) - HELD: Provisions 
contained in s. 25-F (a) and (b) are mandatory and 
termination of service of a workman which amounts to 
retrenchment uls. 2(oo) without complying with the mandates 
867 
G 
H 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A of s.25-F would be null and votd - There was no material to 
show that the engagement of the workman was discontinued 
by relying upon the terms and conditions of the employment 
- Judgment of High Court set aside - Award of reinstatement 
passed by Labour Court restored with wages for the period 
B between the date of award and date of reinstatement. 
The appellant was engaged by the respondent-
Municipal Council for doing the work of clerical nature 
w.e.f.1.8.1994 at a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,000/-per 
month. His services were discontinued w.e.f.30.9.1996, 
C without giving him any notice or compensation as 
required by s.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 
an Industrial Dispute being raised, the State Government 
referred the matter to the Labour Court, which passed an 
award for reinstatement of the workman without back 
D wages. However, the High Court allowed the appeal of 
the employer holding that the Labour Court should not 
have ordered reinstatement of the appellant as his 
appointment was contrary to the recruitment rules and 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it would not be 
E in public interest to sustain the award of reinstatement 
after long lapse of time. The High Court, however, 
declared that the appellant would be entitled to wages in 
terms of s.17-8 of the Act. Aggrieved, the workman filed 
F 
the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 contains an exhaustive definition of the term 
'workman'. The source of employment, the method of 
G recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/ 
contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the 
mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding 
whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning 
of s. 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does 
H not make any distinction between full time and part time 
• 
• 
DEVINDER SINGH v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SANAUR 869 
employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There 
A 
is nothing in the plain language of s. 2(s) from which it 
can be inferred that only a person employed on regular 
basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is 
a workman and the one employed on temporary, part time 
or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee 
B 
or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman. [Para 
12 to 14] [880-E-H; 881-A-C] 
1.2 Whenever an employer challenges the 
maintainability of industrial dispute on the ground that the 
employee is not a workman within the meaning of s. 2(s) 
C 
of the Act, what the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is 
required to consider is whether the person is employed 
in an industry for hire or reward for doing manual, 
uns

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