HARJINDER SINGH versus PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 05-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI, A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 1 S.C.R. 591 
HARJINDER SINGH 
V. 
PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION 
(Civil Appeal No. 587 of 2010) 
JANUARY 05, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
A 
B 
Article 226 and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A read c 
with the Preamble - Writ jurisdiction - High Court substituting 
the award of reinstatement passed by Labour Court, by 
directing compensation to workman - HELD: High Court 
committed serious jurisdictional error by unjustifiably 
interfering with the well reasoned award passed by Labour 0 
Court, on the premise that initial appointment of workman was 
illegal and unconstitutional, particularly, when no such plea 
was raised before Labour Court - While exercising jurisdiction 
under Article 226 and/or 227 in such matters, High Courts are 
duty bound to keep in mind that Industrial Disputes Act and 
other similar legislative enactments are social welfare 
E 
legislations which are to be interpreted keeping in view the 
goals set out in the Preamble and Part=IV of the Constitution, 
particularly, Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A - Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 25-F and 25-G - Social Justice. 
F 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
ss. 25-F and 25-G - Retrenchment of workman, while 
persons junior to him retained - HELD: Labour Court rightly 
passed the award of reinstatement with 50% back wages - For G 
attracting applicability of s.25-G, workman is not required to 
prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days during 
twelve calendar months preceding termination of his services 
- It is sufficient for him to plead and prove that wl1ile effecting 
591 
H 
592 
StJPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 O] 1 S.C.R. 
A retrenchment. employer violated the rule of 'fast come first go' 
without any tangible reason - Constitution of India. 1950 -
Preamble, Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43, 43-A and 226. 
In the reference arising out of the retrenchment of the 
appellant-workman, the Labour Court passed the award 
8 for his reinstatement with 50% back wages holding that 
the principle of equality enshrined in s.25-G of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was violated and the 
persons junior to the appellant were allowed to continue 
in service. The High Court in the writ petition filed by the 
C respondent-Corporation, though agreed with the Labour 
Court that the action taken by the Corporation was 
contrary to s.25-G of the Act, but did not approve the 
award of reinstatement, on the premise that initial 
appointment of the appellant was not in consonance with 
D the statutory regulations and Articles 14 and 16 of the 
Constitution of India, and substituted the award by 
directing payment of compensation to the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal of the workman, the Court 
E 
HELD: 
By the Court: 
1.1. Before the Labour Court, the appellant's claim for 
F reinstatement with back wages was not resisted on the 
ground that his initial appointment was illegal or 
unconstitutional and neither any evidence was produced 
nor any argument was advanced in that regard. 
Therefore, the Labour Court did not get any opportunity 
G to consider the issue whether reinstatement should be 
denied to the appellant by applying the new jurisprudence 
developed by the superior courts in recent years that the 
court should not pass an award which may result in 
perpetuation of illegality. This being the position, the 
H Single Judge was not at all justified in entertaining the 
HARJINDER SINGH v. PUNJAB STATE 
593 
WAREHOUSING CORPORATION 
wholly unfounded and new plea raised on behalf of the 
A 
corporation for the first time during the course of 
arguments. The Single Judge did not keep in view the 
parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of 
jurisdiction by High Court under Article 226 and/or 227 
of the Constitution of India, and committed serious 
B 
jurisdictional error by unjustifiably interfering with an 
otherwise well reasoned award passed by the Labour 
Court and depriving the appellant of what may be the only 
source of his own sustenance and that of his family. 
[Para 10,11 and 16] [603-A; 608-F-H; 609-A-B; 614-C-D] 
C 
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, 1964 
SCR 64 = AIR 1964 SC 477 and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram 
Chander Rai and others 2003 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 290 = 2003 
(6) sec 675, relied on. 
1.2. Another serious error committed by the Single 
Judge is that he decided the writ petition by erroneously 
assuming that the appellant was a daily wage employee. 
T

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