LAXMAN versus STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 541 · Decided: 11-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
l 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
' 
H 
541 
LAX MAN 
l'. 
STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT & ORS. 
I 
·March p, 1974 
( P. JAGANMOllAN REDDY ANDS. N. DWIVEDI JJ.]' 
C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act 1947-s.16-JVhether a <lis-
1nissed, discharged or retrenched employee can invoke the jurisdiction of the authority 
under the S:ate Act for obtaining redress. 
. _ · 
. 
Appellant, a motor driver in the Milk Scheme at Nagpur, v,ras dismissed from· 
servitc by the order of Dairy Development Ccrnmissioner, Bombay. The appellani 
was on probation for 6 months after bis appointrr,ent and he continued in service 
more than 2 years y,.·hen his services were terminated. The appellant filed an appli-
cation, under s. 16 of the C.P. and Derar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, 
before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, praying for re-instatement with back \\-·ages 
and continuity of employment, 
The Asstt. Labour Commissioner set aside the 
order of termination and directed respondents 3 to 5 to reinstate the appellant with 
back \Vages. 
Respondents 3 to 5 filed a revision f:efore the State Industrial Court u/s. 16(5) 
of the Berar Act. That Court set aside the order and rCmandetl the case for a fresh 
decision as to whether the appeIIant was a pern anent employee and whether, he 
\vas illegally retrenched. ·After remand the Deputy Commissioner of Labour 
concluded that the appellant was not a permanent 
employee under the 
provisions of the Standing Orders. He, however held that as . the employee 'vas 
in continuous service, he had been retrenched illegally and in violation of s. 25F 
of the Industrial Disputes Ac~. the Central Act. 
Against this Order, respondents 3 to 5 filed a. revision application u/s, 16(5) of 
the State Act before the State Industrial Court. 
This Court set aside the retren-
chment order and held that the appellant was entitled to retrenchmen't compensation 
and so remaned the case for determination of what that compensation should be, 
Against this order respondents 3 to 5 filed a petition before the High Court. The 
appellant also filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for modification 
of the order of the State Industrial Court and for renstatement with back wages . 
etc. 
Both these petitions were heard together and by a common judgment, allowed 
the application of Respondents 3 to 5 holding that the appellant was not an 
••employee within the meaning of s. 2(10) of the State Act as his dismissal. discharge 
- or removal was not on account of an Industrial dispute and accordingly, the 
appellant's petition was_ dismissed. 
· 
Tue question which fell for consideration wa r,/J whether under the State Act 
a dismissed, discharged or retrenched employee was an .. employee" within the 
_meaning-of s.2(10) of the Act and could invoke the jurisdiction of the authority 
under the State Act for obtaining redress. 
Allowing the appea1, 
HELD : (i) A combined reading of the definition of an "emPloyee" ins. 2(10) 
with s.2 (12) & (13) would show that those who had ceased to be in service were 
also ic.cluded wit~in the definition of an "'employee". [546A-B] 
(ii) Under s. 16(2), an employee working in an industry to which a notification 
under 5ub-s. (1) is applied can within 6 months of his dismissal, discharge, removal 
or suspension apply to the labour commissioner for re-instatement and payment 
of compensation for loss of wages. An employee dismissed, discharged or removed 
on account of any industrial dispute is certainly an employee under s.2(10), and what 
is meant by an .. in~ustrial dispute'' can be ascertained by reference to s.2(12), under 
\\'hich any dispute or difference connected with an industrial matter arising between 
employer and employee or -between employers or employees is an industrial dispute. 
· 
[546C-;-EJ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1974] 3 S.C.R. 
Since the question of re-instaten1ent is an industrial dispute, in the present case, 
the appellant would be an employee within the n1eaning of s.2 (10) of the Act for 
the purposes of availing hin1self of the right under sub-s.(2) of sec. 16 of the Act. 
l546-F] 
Central Provinces Transport Scrrices Ltd., /\'agp11r v. Ragl11111a1h Gopal Pat1rardha11, 
[1956j S.C.R. 956; Western India Automobile Association v. fndustria/ Tribunal, 
B0111bay, [1949] F.C.R. 321 and Bennett Co/en1a11 & Co. (Prirate) Ltd. v. Punya 
Pri.i·a Das Guptu, [1969} L.L.J. 554, referred to . 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 1188 & 1189 of 
196

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