INCHARGE OFFICER AND ANR. versus SHANKAR SHETTY

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 31-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[20101 10 S.C.R. 773 
INCHARGE OFFICER AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
SHANKAR SHETTY 
(Civil Appeal No. 7213 of 2010) 
AUGUST 31, 2010 
B 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.25F - Daily wager 
appointed in 1978 - Worked intermittently for 7 years -
Terminated from service in 1985 i.e. about 25 years back -
C 
Claim fpr re-instatement and back wages on account of 
violation of s. 25 - Held: Order of re-instatement would not 
automatically follow - Instead monetary compensation would 
subserve the ends of justice - Compensation of Rs. 1, 00, 0001 
- in lieu of re-instatement just and equitable - Equity -
D 
Compensation. 
The respondent was engaged as daily wager by the 
appellants in 1978. He worked for about 7 years. In 1985, 
he was terminated from service. He raised industrial 
E 
dispute challenging his termination on the ground that 
the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial 
Disputes Act was not followed. The Labour Court held 
that Section 25F of the Act was not attracted since the 
workman failed to prove that he had worked 
continuously for 240 days in the year preceding his 
termination. Respondent filed writ petition before the High 
Court. The High Court directed reinstatement of the 
respondent into service but without back wages and 
continuity of service. The employer filed the instant 
appeal. 
G 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court erred in granting relief of 
773 
H 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was 
engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement 
continued for about 7 years intermittently upto 
September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In such a 
case, the relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and 
B instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of 
justice. The compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of 
reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. 
[Para 5] [778-C-E] 
Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing 
C Board and Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 327; Senior Superintendent 
Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors 
2010(6) sec 773 - relied on. 
U. P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday 
D Narain Pandey (2006)1 SCC 479; Uttaranchal Forest 
Development Corporation vs. M. C. Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353; 
State of M.P. & Ors. v. La/it Kumar Verma (2007)1 SCC 575; 
Madhya Pradesh Admn. v. Tribhuban (2007)9 SCC 748; Sita 
Ram & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute 
E (2008) 5 SCC 75; Jaipur Development Authority v. 
F 
G 
H 
Ramasahai & Anr. (2006)11 SCC 684; Ghaziabad 
Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. (2008) 
4 SCC 261; Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula 
& Anr. (2008)1 SCC 575 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2009)15 sec 327 
relied on 
Para 2, 5 
(2006)1 sec 479 
referred to 
Para 2 
(2001) 9 sec 353 
referred to 
Para 2 
(2001)1 sec 575 
referred to 
Para 2 
(2001) 9 sec 148 
referred to 
Para 2 
(2008) 5 sec 75 
referred to 
Para 2 
INCHARGE OFFICER AND ANR. v. SHANKAR 
775 
SH ETTY 
(2006)11 SCC 684 
referred to 
Para 2 
A 
(2008) 4 SCC 261 
referred to 
Para 2 
(2008) 1 sec 575 
2010(6) sec 773 
referred to 
relied on 
Para 2 
Para 3 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7213 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.12.2004 of the High 
B 
Court of Bangalore in W.A. No. 7330 of 2001. 
c 
Sanjay R. Hegde, Ramesh Kr. Mishra, Krutin Joshi, Vikrant 
Yadav for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. The only question to be considered in this appeal by 
special leave is with regard to the relief of reinstatement 
granted to the respondent by the Single Judge of the High Court 
bf Karnataka in his judgment and order dated August 13, 2001 
E 
and affirmed by the Division Bench vide its judgment and order 
dated December 9, 2004 in-the writ appeal. Should an order 
of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the 
engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in 
violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
F 
(for short 'ID Act')? The course of decisions of this Court in 
recent years has been uniform on the above question. In the 
case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing 
Board and Anr. 1, delivering the judgment of this Court, one of 
us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this 
G 
Court - namely, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.