LexHARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus OM PAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A v. OM PAL APRIL IO, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: ss. 25F and 25G-Continuity of service-Daily wager worked in one establishment for 145 days-Thereafter he worked in another establishment C for 90 days-Two establishments distinct and separate having different cadre strength-Hence, period during which workman was working in one establishment would not enure to his benefit when he was recruited separately in another establishment particularly when he was not transferred-Labour laws. · s.JIA-Reinstatement with full back-wages-Power of labour court while granting-Held, despite wide discretionary power conferred upon the Labour Courts under s. 11 A, relief of reinstatement with full back-wages not D to be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to do so-lt would depend on the fact situation obtaining in each case-On facts, workman E worked for short period, therefore labour court committed illegality in directing reinstatement with full back wages. Respondent was appointed as a daily wager. He worked for period of 145 days in sub Division No.2 for period of October 94 to Feb., 1995. He, however, worked in Sub-division No.3 for a period of90 days from March, 95 to July, F 95. His services were terminated. He raised industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal directed his reinstatement and full back wages on the ground that the services rendered by respondent in both the Divisions should be counted for the purpose of s.25F r/w. s.25B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellant employer unsuccessfully filed the writ petition. Hence G the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The two Sub-Divisions constituted two different 1091 H 1092 'SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R. A establishments. Only because there is one Controlling Authority, the same by itself would not mean that the establishments were not separate. [Para 3) (1093-G; 1094-A) 2. Respondent did not pro~uce before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court his offers of appointment If offers of appointment had been B issued in his favour by the two Sub-Divisions separately, the same ipso facto would lead to the conclusion that they were separate and distinct. If his appointment was only on the basis of entry in the muster roll(s), the designation of the authority who was authorized to appoint him as a daily- wager would be the determinative factor. It is not the case of the respondent C that.he was appointed in both the establishments by the same authority. [Para 4) (1094-B) 3. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court unfortunately did not go into the said question at all. If both the establishments are treated to be one establishment, for the purpose of reckoning continuity of service within the D meaning of s.25B of the Act, as was held by the Tribunal, a person working at different point of time in different establishments of the statutory authority, would be entitled to claim reinstatement on the basis thereof. However, in that event, one establishment even may not know that the workman had worked in another establishment. In absence of such acknowledge, the authority retrenching the workman concerned would not be able to comply with the E statµtory provisions contained in s.25F of the Act. Thus, once· two establishments are held to be separate and distinct having different cadre strength of the workmen, if any, the period during which the workman was working in one establishment would not enure to his ben~fit when ·he was recruited separately in another establishment, particularly when he was not F transferred from one Sub-Division to the other. (Para 5) (1094-C-E) Union of India and Ors. v. Jummasha Diwan, [Z006) 8 SCC 544, referred to. 4. Moreover, it is now also well-settled that despite a wide discretionary power conferred upto the Industrial Courts under s.llA of the 1947 Act, the G relief of reinstatement with full back-wages should n6t be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to do sc;>. Grant of relief would depend on the fact situation obtaining in each case. It will depend upon several factors; one of which would be as to whether the recruitment was effected in terms of.the statutory provisions operating in the field. (Para 7) (1095-B-C) H 5. Respondent worked for a very short period. He only worked in 1994- .( ~- ,- -...... l I" ......
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.