KRISHAN SINGH versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, ROHTAK

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 344 · Decided: 12-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 344 
A 
KRISHAN SINGH 
v. 
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE 
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, ROHTAK 
(HARYANA) 
B 
(Civil Appeal No. 2335 of 2010) 
MARCH 12, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
c 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1956: 
ss. 25F, 11-A - Termination without notice - Labour Court 
held that termination was illegal and directed reinstatement 
with 50% back wages - High Court set aside award of Labour 
Court and instead directed employer to pay compensation of 
D Rs.50,0001- to the workman - Justification of - Held: Not 
justified - Labour Court took into consideration evidence on 
record and settled law while passing award - The decision of 
High Court had no basis. 
E 
Appellant was working as a daily wager under 
respondent from 1.6.1988. His services were dispensed 
with in December, 1993. He served notice on respondent 
but did not receive response. State Government referred 
the dispute to Labour Court. The Labour Court passed 
an award holding that the appellant had admittedly 
F 
completed 267 days from 01.06.1988 to 30.04.1989 and his 
services were terminated without any notice and in 
violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 
and, therefore he was entitled to be re-instated in his 
previous post with continuity of service and 50% back 
G wages from the date of demand notice, i.e. 30.12.1997. 
H 
Respondent filed writ petition before High Court. High 
Court allowed the same and directed the respondent to 
pay compensation of R:;.50,0001- to the appellant. Hence 
the appeal. 
344 
KRISHAN SINGH v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANASTATE 345 
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act 
clearly provides that where an industrial dispute relating 
A 
to the discharge or disrr.:s~:il of a workman has been 
referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal 
8 
for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication 
proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National 
Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order 
of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its 
award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and 
C 
direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and 
conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief 
to the workman including the award cf any lesser 
punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the 
circumstances of the case may require. Wide discretion 
0 
is, therefore, vested in the Labour Court while 
adjudicating an industrial dispute relating to discharge or 
dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has 
exercised its jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances 
of the case to direct re-instatement of a workman with 
50% back wages taking into consideration the pleadings 
of the parties and the evidence on record, the High Court 
in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the 
Constitution of India should not interfere with the same, 
except on well-settled principles laid down for a writ of 
certiorari against an order passed by a Court or a 
Tribunal. [Para 8] [350-D-H; 351-A] 
Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula & Anr. 
(2008) 1 SCC 575; Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. 
E ., 
F 
v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 261, held inapplicable. 
G 
2. In the present case, the respondent had not taken 
any stand before the Labour Court in his objections that 
the post in which the workman was working was not 
sanctioned or that his engagement was contrary to 
statutory rules or that he was employed elsewhere or that 
H 
346 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A there was no :vacancy. In the absence of any pleadings, 
eyidence or findings on any of these aspects, the· High 
Court should not have modified the Award of the Labour 
Court directing re-instatement of the appellant with 50% 
back wages and instead directing paym(!nt of 
B compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant. [Para 11) 
[352-A-C] 
c 
D 
E 
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & 
Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, distinguished. 
Harjinder Singh v. 
Punjab State Warehousing 
Corporation JT 2010 (1) SC 598, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2008) 1 sec 575 
held inapplicable 
Para 4 
(2008) 4 sec 251 
held inapplicable 
Para 4 
(2006) 4 sec 1 
distinguished 
Para 5 
JT 2010 (1) SC 598 
referred to 
Para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2335 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.12.2008 of the High 
Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.