M/S P.V.K. DISTILLERY LTD. versus MAHENDRA RAM

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 02-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 896 
---
A 
M/S P.V.K. DISTILLERY LTD. 
\I. 
...
MAHENDRA RAM 
(Civil Appeal No.1349 of 2009) 
B 
MARCH 2, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
c 
s. 258(2)(a) - Workman - Labour Court holding his 
termination illegal and directing his reinstatement with full 
back wages - High Court declining to interfere - Appeal -
Notice issued limited to question of 50% back wages - No 
appearance on behalf of workman - HELO: Unjustified and 
illegal termination of services of workman itself does not 
'1 
' 
D 
create a right of reinstatement with full back wages - In the 
interregnum employers' factory remained closed for years 
together and ultimately declared as a sick unit -
Management of factory substituted for its rehabilitation/ 
E 
reconstruction -
In the circumstances, it would be 
unreasonable to put a huge burden on the employers 
requiring them to pay full back wages - Workman shall, 
therefore, be entitled to 50% of the total back wages in terms 
of s. 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - U.P. 
F 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.6-N. 
.... 
P.G.I. of M.E. and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar 
(2001) 2 SCC 54; Hindustan Motors v. T. K. Bhattacharya 
(2002) 6 SCC 41; UP. State Brassware Corp. Ltd. v. Uday 
Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479; Haryana Urban 
G Development Authority v. Om Pal (2007) 5 SCC 7 42; 
Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Third Industrial Tribunal, West 
Bengal 1978 Lab IC 179(SC) Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. 
• 
v. Employees (1979) 2 SCC 80; Surendra Kumar Verma v. 
Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (1980) 4 
H 
896 
P.V.K. DISTILLERY LTD. v. MAHENDRA RAM 
897 
f 
SCC 443; Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai 
A 
(2005) 5 SCC 124; Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. 
S. Viswanathan (2005) 3 SCC 193, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2001) 2 sec 54 
referred to 
para 10 
B 
(2002) 6 sec 41 
referred to 
para 12 
(2006) 1 sec 479 
referred to 
para 13 
(2007) 5 sec 742 
referred to 
para 14 c 
1978 Lab IC 179(SC) 
referred to 
para 15 
(1979) 2 sec 80 
referred to 
para 16 
(1980) 4 sec 443 
referred to 
para 17 
D 
(2005) 5 sec 124 
referred to 
para 18 
(2005) 3 sec 193 
referred to 
para 19 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1349 
of 2009. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ 
~ 
Petition No. 32250 of 1990. 
S.N. Mehrotra, Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh, Sumit Sinha 
F 
and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted in the special leave petition. 
G 
·• 
(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil 
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 32250 of 1990 dated 
H 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A 21.5.2007. 
(2) The facts in nutshell are as follows: the respondent, 
Mahendra Ram, was recruited on casual basis some time in 
the year 1981 in Mis P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. (now rechristened 
B as Lords Distillery Ltd.). On 14.8.1982 he was shifted to bottling 
section as a permanent workman by the orders of the General 
Manager. On 19.1.1985 services of the respondent were 
terminated by an oral order from the employer. Aggrieved by 
the said order, respondent went before the Labour Court inter-
C alia alleging that he was employed in the establishment of the 
employer and that his services were terminated orally in an 
unjustifiable and illegal manner. Appellants on the other hand 
contended, that, respondent was engaged by Gaya Singh 
Yadav, contractor and therefore respondent was never in their 
D employment and thus master-servant relationship never existed 
between them. 
(3) Labour Court after considering and appreciating the 
oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to the 
conclusion, that, the respondent, Mahendra Ram, was in the 
E continuous employment of the establishment since 1980 and 
the employer unjustifiably and illegally terminated workman's 
services from 19.1.1985. The labour court has also come to 
the conclusion that the respondent-workman has worked for 
more than 240 days in a calendar yea·r, as required by section 
F 25B(2)(a) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore he is 
entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full 
employment benefits and back wages. 
(4) In the interregnum, the appellant's factory remained 
closed for years togeth

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