M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LTD versus KASHIRAM VERMA

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 16-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LTD.
v.
 KASHIRAM VERMA
(Civil Appeal No. 5758 of 2012)
MARCH 16, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Labour Laws: Labour dispute – Non-mentioning of the
permanent address of the workman, addressed furnished is care of
Union, and as such efforts to serve him at the given address remained
futile – Held: Effective relief can granted to a worker only if the
permanent address of the workman is furnished in the pleadings –
Issuance of directions to the authorities working under the various
labour laws to take corrective measure – Parties to furnish their
permanent address – Even if the representative of the workman is
appearing, he shall furnish permanent address of the workman as
well – Mere mentioning through labour union or authorised
representatives, who are sometimes union leaders or legal
practitioners not sufficient – Service of notice of workman to be
affected on the permanent address of the workman – On facts, the
employee did not furnish his own address but is through some Union
– Management sent various communications by Registered Post/
Courier requesting him to report for duty, but there was no response
– Conduct of the employee itself establishes that he is no more
interested in employment – Thus, the award passed by the labour
court directing reinstatement of the employee with continuity of
service as upheld by the High Court, set aside – Judicial directions.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5758
of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.06.2010 of the High Court
of Bombay in AN No.781 of 2006 in WP No. 1607 of 2007.
Ms. Sonal Gupta, M/s. Parekh & Co., Advs. for the Appellant.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 958
958
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
959
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The Management has filed the present appeal challenging the
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay dated 10.06.2010 vide which the order passed by the Single
Bench dated 06.07.2006 was upheld. As a consequence, the award of
the Labour Court was held to be valid. The Labour Court vide its award
dated 28.10.2005 had directed reinstatement of the respondent with
continuity of service from 08.12.1997 with full back wages.
2. A perusal of the paper-book shows that the notice in the Petition
for Special Leave to Appeal was issued on 22.10.2010. As the respondent
remained unserved, fresh notice was directed to be issued on 13.12.2010.
Dasti service was also permitted through nearest civil court or trial court.
On 24.10.2011, this Court being not satisfied that service of the respondent
had been effected, directed for issuance of fresh notice subject to deposit
of ` 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent for his travelling expenses as
and when he enters appearance. Dasti service was also permitted. Fresh
notice was issued on 24.07.2011 as the service was not complete. As
per Office Report dated 14.12.2011 in terms of the affidavit filed by the
appellant, the service on the respondent was complete but he had not
put in appearance till date. Meaning thereby that he is not interested to
defend the present litigation.
3. A perusal of the award of the Labour Court shows that the
address of the respondent is through some Union and he had not furnished
his own address. A perusal of the order passed by the Single Bench of
High Court shows that the respondent workman was represented, hence
he knew about the challenge to the award of the Labour Court and also
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. The Order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court in the appeal filed by the Management against the order
passed by the Single Bench shows that the statement of the counsel for
the Management was recorded that the Management will reinstate the
workman and he shall be communicated accordingly so as to enable him
to report for duty. Challenge was to the award of the Labour Court only
to the extent of award of back-wages. The appeal was admitted.
Thereafter, the Management had sent various communications by
Registered Post/Courier on 08.11.2006, 10.11.2006 and 24.11.2006
M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LTD. v. KASHIRAM VERMA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
requesting the respondent to report for duty. However, there was no
response.
5. Further, when the matter was taken up by the Division Bench
of the High Court on 30.10.2007, the statement of counsel for the
workman was recorded

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