DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ANR. versus SATISH KANTILAL AMRELIA

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 28-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017) 12 S.C.R. 414 
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ANR. 
v. 
SATISH KANTILAL AMRELIA 
(Civil Appeal Nos.19857-19858 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
. 
. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-ss.25-G, 11-A, 10- Termination 
of workman - Monetary compensation ..., Respondent worked in 
C 
appellant'.5 Revenue Department as a Peon-cum"Driver on daily 
wages - He was terminated - Aggrieved, respondent approached 
Labour Court for deciding the legality and propriety of his 
termination order - Labour Court answered the reference in favour 
of respondent and directed the appellant to re-instate the respondent 
in service along with payment of 40% back. wages - Writ petition 
D 
filed, by the appellant was dismissed - On appeal, held: It is an 
admitted fact that the respondent was. a daily wager during his short 
tenure, which lasted harqly two and half year.i approximately -
Labour _Court found the termination to be bad due to violation of 
s.25-G of the Act - However, the instant case does not fall in 
E 
F 
exceptional cases as observed by Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar 
Nigam Limited case, as appellant did not resort to any kind of unfair 
practice while terminating the services of the respondent - It would 
be just a[ld proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary 
compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his 
claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking 
recourse to the powers u/s.11-A of the Act. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was a 
daily wager during his short tenure, which lasted hardly two and. 
half years approximately and coupled with the fact that 25 years 
G has since been passed from the date of his. alleged. termination. 
H 
On perusal of the entire record of the· case, it was considered 
that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar 
Nigam Limited would aptly apply to the facts of this c.ase. [Para 
13] [418-B-C] 
414 
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ANR. v. SATISH 
415 
KANTILAL AMRELIA 
2. The Labour Court has found that the termination is bad A 
due to violation of Section 25-G of the Act. Taking note of overall 
factual scenario emerging from the record of the case and having 
regard to the nature of the findings rendered and further the 
averments made in the SLP justifying the need to pass the 
termination order, this case does not fall in exceptional cases as 
observed by this Court in Para 35 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam 
Limited case due to finding of Section 25-G of the Act recorded 
against the appellant. In other words, there are reasons to take 
B 
out the case from exceptional cases contained in Bharat Sanchar 
Nigam Limited case because the appellant did not resort to any 
kind of unfair practice while terminating the services of the C 
respondent. [Para 15] [419-F-H; 420-A] 
3. Therefore, it would be just, proper and reasonable to 
award lump sum monetary compensation 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 D 
Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in 
Bharat Sa11char Nigam Limited case. [Para 16] [420-B] 
Bharat S(mc/wr Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal (2014) 7 
SCC 177 : [2013] 16 SCR 1023 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
[2013] 16 SCR 1023 
relied on 
Para 13 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 19857-
19858 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2014 in Ci vii Application 
No. 10519 of 2014 in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp Number) 
No. 1878/2006 and Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2006 in Special 
Civil Application No. 8390 of 2006 of the High Court of Gujarat at 
Ahmedabad. 
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Shodhika Sharmi1, 
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advs for the Appellants. 
Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Ms. Deepa 
Ghornsiu, Advs for the Respondent. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order 
dated 01 '.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in 
Civil Application No.10519 of2014 in Letters PatentAppeal No.1878 of 
2006, wherein the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed 
by the appellant herein in default and further declined to restore the 
appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.