JEETUBHA KHANSANGI JADEJA versus KUTCHH DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 854 · Decided: 23-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
JEETUBHA KHANSANGI JADEJA
v.
KUTCHH DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
(Civil Appeal No. 6890 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 23, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.25B – Continuous service –
Termination – Not justified – Appellant-workman was appointed as
a watchman by Respondent society-managment – Terminated –
Labour Court held that the appellant’s termination was illegal,
directed reinstatement with continuity but without backwages –
Single Judge affirmed the award – Division Bench rejected
management’s appeal – SLP, matter remitted for fresh consideration
– Division Bench set aside the direction to reinstate the appellant
and instead awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.1 lakh – On
appeal, held: Concededly, the appellant had worked for over 10
years – Both the Labour Court and the Single Judge concluded
that his claim for having continuously worked within the meaning
of s.25B stood proved – Division Bench has not interfered with the
factual findings, therefore, the direction to substitute the relief of
reinstatement with one for lumpsum payment was not warranted –
No perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the Labour Court
and the Single Judge in directing the appellant’s reinstatement –
Appellant be reinstated, he is also entitled to backwages for a period
of two years immediately preceding, i.e., from 01.01.20 to 01.01.22
– Impugned judgment set aside – Direction of the Labour Court
and the Single Judge for continuity of service is also restored.
Labour Law – Reinstatement of employee, backwages –
Restitutionary approach – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The record indicates that both the Labour Court
and the Single Judge elaborately considered the depositions of
the parties as well as the evidence on the record. In fact, the
appellant workman had applied under the RTI Act, eliciting
relevant documents to substantiate his claim that employees junior
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 854
854
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
855
to him, were retained in the service. The management was unable
to refute the material on record. On the other hand, it claimed
the inability to produce the relevant documents, i.e., the muster
roll for the later period of the appellant’s service. Concededly,
the appellant had worked for over 10 years. In the absence of
precise details as to the so-called periods when the appellant
had not been employed – as alleged by the management, both
the Labour Court and the Single Judge concluded that his claim
for having continuously worked within the meaning of Section
25B of the Industrial Disputes Act stood proved. Furthermore,
the workman had deposed that employees junior to him were
retained in the service, contrary to Section 25G of the Industrial
Disputes Act. In the circumstances, given the fact that the
direction of the Labour Court was only to reinstate but not pay
backwages, the Division Bench’s substitution of that relief is not
based on any known principle. In the present case, the Labour
Court had rendered its award on 31.08.2010; the Single Judge
rejected the management’s writ petition on 04.05.2011. The
management’s appeal was, in the first instance, rejected on
16.01.2014; however, it approached this Court by filing special
leave petition, which was allowed on 29.04.2016. It was thereafter
– 5 years later, that the impugned judgment was delivered. Having
regard to these factors, the Court is of the opinion that the
appellant workman could not have been made to suffer on account
of the management’s obdurate attempt to have the relief set aside.
Furthermore, the Division Bench’s impugned judgment has not
interfered with the factual findings. Therefore, the direction to
substitute the relief of reinstatement with one for lumpsum
payment was not warranted in the circumstances of this case.
There is no perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the
Labour Court and the single judge in directing the appellant’s
reinstatement. Had the respondent management chosen to accept
the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of
waiting for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, the denial
of backwages, has resulted in punishing him, although the delay
is attributable to the judicial process. However, the respondent
management cannot be absolved of the primary responsibility in
its litigative proclivity. In these circumstances, the appellant shall
be entitled to backwages for a period of two years immediatel

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