GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS versus RUDHAN SINGH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 14-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS 
A 
v. 
RUDHAN SINGH 
WLY 14,2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHURANDP.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Section 25F-Termination of service in violation of S.25-Payment of 
_back wages-Determining factors-Held: No rule that entire back wages C 
should be awarded-Factors such as length of service and nature of 
employment to be considered 
Section 25F-Reinstatement of Respondent, a Class JV workman, by 
Labour Court with continuity of service and 50% back wages-Validity of- D 
Held: Respondent had worked for 264 days in one calendar year, hence, 
S.25F was applicable-Since neither any notice was given nor wages in lieu 
of the period of notice nor any retrenchment compensation was paid, 
termination of respondent was invalid-Hence, reinstatement with continuity 
of service upheld-But Respondent not entitled to 50% back wages since he 
had only worked on daily wage basis and that too for a very short period E 
of less than a year which was not even continuous-A/so since he is technically 
not trained and the type of work he was doing was easily available while 
he was under termination. 
Section lO(l)(c)-Reference before Labour Court-Held: Not to be 
. made after lapse of long period as it causes prejudice both to the workman F 
and the employer. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-New plea-Plea not raised 
.. ·before lower Courts cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in 
appeal before Supreme Court. 
Respondent worked on a class IV post with the appellant for a short 
period of less than one year, with some breaks. Thereafter he was not given 
any appointment. He raised demand for being reinstated before the 
Conciliation Officer, but the conciliation efforts failed. Consequently, the State 
569 
G 
H 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A Government made reference under Section IO(l)(c) of the Industrial Dispqtes 
Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which held that the . 
respondent had worked for 264 days in one calendar year and, therefore, the 
termination of his service without complying with the requirements of Section 
25-F of the Act was illegal as neither any notice nor salary in lieu thereof 
B nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Regarding back wages 
it was held that since the respondent was working on a class IV post and the 
said type of work was easily available in the State, it cannot be held that the 
respondent did not earn any amount during the period he was out of 
employment Accordingly an award was passed directing reinstatement of the 
respondent on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back 
C wages. Writ petition challenging the award was dismissed by High Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court 
D insofar as it directs reinstatement with continuity of service is upheld but 
the award regarding payment of 50% back wages is set aside. (579-E) 
2. Plea raised by appellant that the respondent had been appointed for a 
fixed period and his appointment came to an automatic end after the expiry of 
the period and, therefore, it was not a case of retrenchment in view of Section 
E 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, does not appear to have been pressed before the Industrial 
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court nor the award shows that any evidence was led to 
substantiate such a plea that the respondent had been engaged on contract 
for a fixed period or his contractual employment had come to an end in 
accordance with any stipulation contained therein in that behalf. This plea 
F has also not been raised before the High Court and, therefore, it is not open 
to the appellant to raise a new plea at this stage. (574-C-E) 
3. The requirements of Section 25-F of the Act would be satisfied if a 
workman has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months and it is not 
necessary that he should have been in the service of employer for complete 
G one year. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Lab9ur Court has recorded a finding 
that the respondent has worked for 264 days and this finding has not been 
challenged before the High Court. In this view of the matter the provisions of 
Section 25-F of the Act are clearly applicable and as neither any notice or 
wages in lieu of the period of notice nor any retrenchment compensation was 
paid to the respondent, his termination of service has to be held to be inva

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