DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus KALAWATI PANDURANG FULZELE

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 31-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 399
399
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
KALAWATI PANDURANG FULZELE
(Civil Appeal No. 463 of 2022)
JANUARY 31, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:ss. 25F and 25G – Retrenchment
of workman – On facts, terminationof workman set aside by courts
belowexcept Industrial Court and ordered reinstatement with back
wages – Correctness of – Held: Appointment of the workman was
on contractual basis at a fixed honorarium, she worked for
approximately for four years and there were no allegations on any
unfair labour practice – Only finding recorded by the labour court
was termination in breach of ss. 25F and 25G – Thus, order of
reinstatement and back wages not warranted and instead lumpsum
compensation is awarded, modifying the order passed by the labour
court – s. 2(oo)(bb) – Industrial Disputes Act (Bombay) Rules,
1957 – r. 81.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is true that as such all the three courts below
(except the Industrial Court) held the termination of the
respondent-workman in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the
Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the Labour Court ordered
reinstatement with back wages. However, it is required to be
noted that even as per the appointment order produced by the
respondent herself, her appointment was on contractual basis at
a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs. 500/- per month. Though, it is a
case on behalf of the appellant that her appointment was a fixed
term appointment, however, considering the appointment order,
the appointment was till further orders. It also cannot be disputed
that she worked approximately for four years as a sweeper. As
such there were no specific averments/allegations in the
complaint on any unfair labour practice. Even there was no specific
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
finding recorded by the Labour Court that there was any unfair
labour practice adopted by the MSRTC. The only finding recorded
by the Labour Court was that the termination was in breach of
Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the
appointment was purely on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/
honorarium of Rs.500/- per month, the order of reinstatement
with back wages was not warranted and instead if the lumpsum
compensation of Rs. Three lakhs only is awarded in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages, it would meet the ends of
justice.In view thereof, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment and
award passed by the Labour Court ordering reinstatement with
back wages is hereby modified and the appellant is directed to
pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only) to the respondent, within the stipulated period.
[Paras 6-8][403-D-G; 404-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 463 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Letters Patent Appeal
No.37 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.3819 of 2003.
Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Ms. Purvat Wali,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Subhasish Bhowmick, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Harsh Gupta, John
Thomas Hrakal, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay at Nagpur in LPA No. 37 of 2008 by which the Division Bench
of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and
setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Tribunal
and restoring the award passed by the Labour Court directing the appellant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
401
to reinstate the respondent with back wages, the employer –
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to
MSRTC”) has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the respondent herein was appointed as sweeper firstly,
by written order of appointment dated 08.06.1989 and by another order
dated 01.04.1991 on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.500/- per month.
That there was an increase of Rs.50/- per month in her consolidated
honorarium. She continuously worked as sweeper till she was lastly
terminated on 01.08.1994. It appears that her husband was working as a
coolie 

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