LexM/S. LAXMI RATTAN COTTON MILLS LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 283 MIS. LAXM1 RATTAN COTTON MILLS LTD. A II. . STATE OF U.P. & ORS . . (Civil Appeal No. 6710 of 2008) NOVEMBER 19, 2008 B , 1 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ~ s. 11A - Powers of labour Court- Scope - Grant of back wages - Held: Industrial Court .has wide discretion in terms of s. 11 A -: But, such discretion c .to be exercised judiciously - On facts, engagement of workers as trainee investigators did not confer any right on them to be appointed substantively against any post - Yet after completion of training, Management offered employment to the workers as clerks, a lower post carrying less wages, which D .they accepted without any demur.,.. Only after the mill became " sick ·ten years later and was closed, the workers made a belated attempt to raise industrial dispute by seeking appointment in the post of investigator from date of initial appointment - Doctrine of acquiescence and waiver was thus E applicable - Industrial Court erred in upholding the claim of workers to the post oi Investigator and in directing grant of back wages with retrospective effect- U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. " .. In 1980-81, Appellant-mill engaged respondent Nos.2 F to 7 as trainee investigators on monthly stipend basis, on the condition that it would have no obligation to provide them any employment after completion of the training period. Nevertheless, on completion of the training, the G said private respondents were offered appointment as >; clerks i.e. at a lower post carrying lower wages. Allegedly, at that point of time, only the posts of clerks were vacant. The private respondents accepted the post of clerk 283 H 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A without any protest or demur and at a later date also accepted permanent status on such post without any protest. However in 1991, after the appellant-mill became sick 8 and was eventually closed, the private respondents raised demand, seeking entitlement to the post of investigator, from the date of initial appointment. Reference was made before the Industrial Tribunal, which upheld the entitlement of the private Respondents, but from the date of reference of the matter to the Court. C Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court. D Meanwhile, pursuant to a scheme floated by the appellant for voluntary retirement, the respondents applied therefor and obtained compensation. The writ petition was dismissed. The 'management filed the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal with certain directions, the Court HELD: 1.1. Whether the respondents were entitled to be appointed as investigators was the question which should have been posed and answered by the Industrial E Court. From the terms of offer of engagement issued in · favour of the respondents, it is evident that their job as trainee investigators was temporary in nature. They were not conferred with any o;tatus. They were only engaged as trainee investigators. Their appointments had not F been made in strict compliance of the constitutional ~- ~ G scheme of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They were not even appointed as . apprentices within the meaning of the provisions of th~ Apprentices Act, 1961. [Para 13) [293-A-B-C] 1.2. The respondents were offered the posts of clerk which was accepted by them as the same were vacant. ~ They had no l~gal right to be appointed as investigators. hey accepted the said offer without any demur H whatsoever. For a long time, no industrial dispute was LAXMI RATIAN COTION MILLS LTD. v. STATE OF U.P. 285 · & ORS. raised nor any demand was made by them or the Union ' A on their behalf. The concerned respondents were nofi' illiterate. They wer<'! aware of their rights. If they stood'by'i for a long time, the doctrine of acquiescence and waiver:: ·would apply in their cases. [Para 14] [29?-D-E] = •· ·"' 1'' .;, .· . :.' .'iii) 8:'1 .. 1.3.lt may be that the respondents were forced to,.. · accept appointment in lower posts although they were . entitled for appointment to higher post, but, merely;; because at a later point of time services of an employee .. were regularized in the post of investigator would itself'. .. cannot be said to be determinative of the factor that the C action on the part of the employer was discriminatory and/ or malafide in nature. [Para 15] [293-G-H; 294-A] . 1.4. The ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.