LexMADHYA PRADESH ADMINISTRATION versus TRIBHUBAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MADHYA PRADESH ADMINISTRATION v. TRIBHUBAN APRIL 05, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section I IA-Termination of temporary appointee with break in service-Retrenchment compensation by Industrial court-Reinstatement with full back wages by High Court- Correctness of- C Held: In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, High Court should have taken into consideration the jurisdiction exercised by indus_trial court- Thus, in the interest of justice, employee directed to be paid compensation. Respondent was appointed on temporary basis from time to time with D break in service with the appellant. His services were terminated. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised and was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. Tribunal awarded retrenchment compensation since the appellant did not comply with the requirement of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellant did not challenge the award. However, respondent filed the writ petition. Single Judge of High Court directed re-instatement of respondent E with full back wages. Division Bench upheld the order. Hence the present appeal Partly Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Industrial Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction F under section llA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It merely directed the amount of compensation to which the respondent was entitled to, had the provisions of section 25F been complied with should be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It is not suggested that the High Court could not interfere with the said order, but the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the G Industrial Court, should have been taken into consideration for determination of the question as to what relief should be granted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Each case is required to be dealt with in the fact situation obtaining therein. (Para 13) (924-F-G) 1.2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and H 918 MADHYA PRADESH ADMINISTRATION 1•. TRIBHUBAN (S.B. SINHA, J.) 919 .... particularly the fact that the High Court had directed re-instatement with full A ~ back wages, interest of justice would be subserved by directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent (Para 14) (924-H; 925-A] - Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., [2006) 4 SCC 1; M P. Housing Board and Anr. v. Manoj Shrivastava, (2006) 2 SCC B 702; State of MP. and Ors. v. Arjunlal Rajak, [2006) 2 SCC 711 and MP. State ~ Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd and Anr. v. S.C. Pandey, [2006) 2 sec 716, relied on. Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank and Ors., [2007) 1 SCC 566, c distinguished. Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava and ---- Anr., [2007) 1 SCC 491 and Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M C. Joshi, (2007) 3 SCALE 545, referred to. CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1817 of2007. D - / From the Final Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2005 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 622 of 2005. Vikas Singh, ASG. and Sibo Sankar Mishra for the Appellant E Sanjoy Ghosh, Anitha Shenoy and Nitin for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. State of Madhya Pradesh runs an establis.hment in Delhi known as ~ -( Madhya Pradesh Bhawan. Respondent was appointed on temporary basis from time to time with breaks in services. He worked for the period 13.12.1991 ·to 1.3.1994. After his services were terminated, an industrial dispute was raised. The said dispute was referred for its determination before the Industrial G Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal by an Award dated 26.7.2002, while holding ~· that in terminating the services of the respondents the appellant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, awarded only retrenchment compensation alongwith -- notice pay together with interest@9% per annum. Validity of the said Award was not questioned by the appellant. Respondent, however, filed a Writ H y 920 SUl'Rt~ME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. ""':' A Petition thereagainst. By a Judgment and Order dated 24.2.2005 and 15.4.2005, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the said Writ Petition directing re-instatement of the respondent with full back wages.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.