FAZIKA COOP. SUGAR MILLS versus JATINDER KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 25-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
j 
A 
F AZIKA COOP. SUGAR MILLS 
v. 
JA TINDER KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. 
APRIL 25, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
i 
Labour Laws: 
.. 
c 
Dismissal from service-Management directed to pay subsistence 
allowance to workman on a Writ Petition by workman-Management did not 
pay the same-Labour Court denied permission to management to lead 
evidence-Ordered reinstatement with back wages-High Court upheld the 
same-Challenge against-Held, on facts, after long passage of time, it is not 
proper to direct reinstatement-High Court's order in law is irreversible-
D But in view of peculiar circumstances, management directed to pay Rs.2 lacs 
to workman in full and final settlement. 
The respondent-workman was dismissed from service and he raised 
industrial dispute. In Writ Petition filed by workman, the High Court directed 
the management to pay the subsistence allowance to the workman. As 
E appellant-management did not pay the subsistence allowance, the Labour Court 
decided in favour of workman and refused the permission to the management 
to lead evidence. Thereafter they paid the subsistence allowance. 
Aggrieved management filed writ petition before the High Court High 
F 
Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 
1 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. One factor is clear that there was no date fixed for payment 
but dates were fixed before the Labour Court in the proceedings. The payment 
of subsistence allowance after the order of the Labour Court closing the 
G evidence so far as the management is concerned cannot be termed as in any 
manner arbitrary. However, the order of dismissal was passed in 1992 and 
x 
the industrial dispute was raised under s. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 on 11.5.1994 and a reference was made under Section IO(l)(c) of the 
Act thereafter. (Para 5] (620-D, E, F] 
H 
618 
FAZIKACOOP SUGARMILLSv.JATINDERKUMARGUPTA[PASAYAT,J.] 
619 
2. The management was required to give opportunity to the respondent A 
to lead evidence on merits. Since the enquiry was allegedly not conducted in 
fair and proper manner, opportunity was granted to the management to adduce 
evidence. On the writ petition filed by the respondent-workman the High Court 
had issued notice. After this long passage of time it would not be proper to 
direct re-instatement and that too with back wages. It has been pointed out B 
that the appellant is suffering huge amount of loss amounting to Rs-35 crores. 
In the facts and circumstances of the case of High Court's order in law is 
irreversible. But keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, in full and 
~ 
final settlement of the claims of the respondent-workman a sum of rupees 2 
lakhs is directed to be paid within a period of 6 months. The respondent-
workman shall not have any further claim and/or the appellant shall have no C 
liability so far as against respondent-workman is concerned. 
[Para 6] [620-F, G, H; 621-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2144 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2004 of the Punjab & Haryana D 
High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 1655 of2004. 
S. Janani and Deepak Goel for the Appellant. 
Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Amanpreet Singh Rabi, Kiran Suri and Devesh 
Tripathi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by 
E 
the appellant. In the writ petition challenge was to the award dated 10.12.2003 F 
made by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, Punjab. By the said award the respondent 
No. I-workman was directed to be re-instated in service with continuity of 
service alongwith 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. Grievance 
before the High Court was that the appellant was not granted opportunity to 
lead evidence. It appears that in the writ petition No.14465 of 2001 the G 
workman was directed to be paid the subsistence allowance. Since the 
subsistence allowance was not paid the Labour Court decided in favour of 
the respondent and the appellant was not granted permission to lead evidence. 
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the course adopted was 
illegal. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman, however, supported the 
orders stating that the order of the Labour Court for payment of subsistence H 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPOR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.