KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITY, MANGALORE versus PAHAL SINGH

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 1085 · Decided: 10-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-)_ 
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITY, MANGALORE 
A 
v. 
PAHALSINGH 
APRIL 10, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
~ 
Judgment/Order: 
Reasoned order-Award passed by Labour Court-Upheld in writ c 
petition, by High Court with modification in quantum of back wages without 
giving reasons-On appeal, held: High Court while exercising power under 
Arts.226 and 227 has to apply its mind to contentions raised hy parties and 
give reasoned order-High Court's order is not reasoned one and is set 
aside-Constitution of India, 1950-Arts.226 and 227. 
UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 194?: 
D 
--~ 
s.2(g)-Terinination of workman~Before Labour Court, workman 
required to prove that his termination was illegal-Merely because he filed 
affidavit and employer did not file rejoinder affidavit thereto, would not 
imply that award in favour of workman automatically follows-Labour Laws- E 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Industrial dispute raised by workman after l 8 years-Labour Court 
ordered reinstate"!ent with full back wages-Correctness of-Held, 
incorrect-Delay defeats equity--Delay/laches. 
Respondent-Workman appointed on a temporary basis was terminated F 
.r 
from seniices in 1974. He raised industrial dispute in 1992. The Labour Court 
directed reinstatement with full wages. While directing so, Labour Court held 
that the employen have not controverted the written statement (affidavit) of 
workman by filing the rejoinder alongwith affidavit and the far.ts regarding 
termination of services pleaded by the workman were also not c;ontroverted G 
by employers either in arguments or in evidence. Appellant preferred writ 
petition wherey the High Court modified the award directipg reinstatement 
- -"" 
with 50% back wages. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
1085 
H 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 4 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. The judgment of the High Court is not a reasoned one. Why 
the Award was upheld with modification in quantum of back wages has not 
been stated. [Para 6) (1088-D] 
2.1. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India upon issuance of a rule nisi is 
B expected to apply its mind to the contentions raised by the parties and arrive 
at findings thereupon. The Labour Court also committed the same error. 
[Para 7 & 8) (1088-E) 
2.2. The Labour Court, thus, also did not advert itself to the questions 
C which were required to be gone into. The workman in the said proceedings 
was required to show that the termination was illegal. Only because it filed 
an affidavit and the respondent did not file any rejoinder affidavit thereto, the 
same by itself would not mean that an Award would automatically follow. 
(Para· 10) [1089-B) 
D 
2.3. The Labour Court was also under an obligation to consider as to 
whether any relief, if at all could be granted in favour of the workman in view 
of the fact that the industrial dispute had been raised after 18 years. It is now 
well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". It was obligatory on 
the part of the Labour Court to consider that the respondent was in 
E employment for very short period. It had also not arrived at a finding that the 
respondent was in continuous service within the meaning of s.2(g) of the U.P. 
Industrial Disputes Act or for that matter in terminating the services of the 
respondent, the appellant did not comply with the requirements of law 
particularly Section 6-N thereof. In absence of such a finding, the High Court 
should have interfered with the Award. [Paras 11] (1089-C-D] 
F 
3. The Labour Court exercises its wide jurisdiction under Section 1 lA 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, but such jurisdiction must be exercised 
judiciously. A relief of re-instatement with all back wages is not to be given 
without considering the relevant factors therefore, only because it would be 
lawful to do so. In this case, even the basic requirements for grant of any 
G relief had not been found by the Labour Court. {Para 13) (1089-FJ 
Assistant Engineer, C.A.D., Kola v. Dhan Kunwar, AIR [2006] SC 2670 
and Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M C. Joshi, [2007] 3 
SCALE 545, relied on. 
H 
Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank v. Nee/am, [2005] 
-f--
--
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITY, MANGALORE v. PAHAL SINGH [S.B. SINHA, J.] 1087 
5 SCC 91 and U. P. State Electricity Board v. Rajesh Kumar, (2003) 12 SCC A 
548, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.