MANAGEMENT, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD versus GHANSHYAM SHARMA

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1193 · Decided: 30-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1193
MANAGEMENT, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD.
v.
GHANSHYAM SHARMA
(Civil Appeal No. 856 of 2012)
OCTOBER 30, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
s. 11A – Termination of services of casual worker, who had
worked for just 240 days – Labour Court set aside the termination
order holding it as illegal and directed  reinstatement of the workman
with continuity in service – Single Judge of High Court set aside
the award of Labour Court – Division Bench of High Court restored
the award of Labour Court – On appeal, held: In view of the facts
that the workman was a casual worker and had rendered service
for a very short duration and that there was no evidence as to
whether he was gainfully employed, order of reinstatement  alongwith
payment of back wages and continuity of service was wrong –
Labour Court in exercise of powers u/s. 11A should have awarded
lump sum compensation – The award is modified to the extent that
in lieu of right to claim reinstatement, compensation of
Rs. 50,000/- in lump sum is granted – Labour Laws.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1. The respondent was a casual worker and hardly
worked for one year (10.6.1976 to 30.7.1977). Having regard to
the fact that many decades had passed in between with no evidence
adduced by the respondent that whether he was gainfully
employed from 1977 onwards or not, the Labour Court should
have awarded lump sum money compensation to the respondent
in lieu of the relief of reinstatement along with payment of back
wages and continuity of service by taking recourse to the powers
under Section 11-A of the Act, rather than to direct his
reinstatement 
with 
all 
consequential 
benefits.
[Paras 13 and 14][1196-A-C]
2. The impugned order and the award of the Labour Court
is modified.  The appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1193
1193
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
- in lump sum to the respondent (employee) by way of
compensation in lieu of respondent’s right to claim reinstatement
in service.  The amount of compensation is fixed by this Court
after taking into account all facts and circumstances of the case
including the fact of making payment to the respondent by way of
monthly salary during pendency of the writ petition/intra court
appeal by the appellant under Section 17-B of the Act.
[Paras 16, 17][1198-F-H]
Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v.
Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 773; Assistant
Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Ors.
v. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 : [2013] 1 SCR 679
– relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2010) 6 SCC 773
relied on
Para 15
[2013] 1 SCR 679
relied on
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 856 of
2012
From the Judgment and Order dated  18.12.2007 of the  High
Court of  Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 1417 of 1997.
Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Ankita Gupta, Ms. Pratibha Jain,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed against
the final judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the High Court
of Judicature of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1417
of 1997 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the
respondent.
2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They are stated
infra.
3. The appellant is a Government company engaged in
manufacture of certain items.  It is now declared as a sick company.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1195
4. The respondent (workman) claimed that he worked with the
appellant Company as a casual helper in its manufacturing plant from
10.06.1976 to 30.07.1977.  He complained that by an oral order; the
appellant on 31.07.1977 terminated his services and, therefore, since
31.07.1977 he is no longer in the employment of the appellant.
5. The termination of the respondent, therefore, gave rise to the
industrial dispute between the parties. The State, on the prayer made by
the respondent (workman), referred the dispute under Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”) to the Labour Court, Jaipur
on 03.11.1983, for its adjudication.
6. The parties contested the Reference on merits before the Labour
Court.  By award dated 21.09.1988, the Labour Court answered the
Reference in respondent’s favour.
7. It was held that termination of the respondent was not leg

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