MANAGER (NOW REGIONAL DIRECTOR), R.B.I. versus GOPINATH SHARMA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 17-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANAGER (NOW REGIONAL DIRECTOR), R.B.I. 
A 
v. 
GOPINATH SHARMA AND ANR. 
JULY 17, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.) 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14, 16 and 226-Policy for engaging daily wage workers framed 
by Reserve Bank of India-High Court in writ petition directing reinstatement C 
of disengaged worker with back wages-Held, High Court erred in examining 
legality of the policy of RBI and holding it contrary to Articles 14 and 16-
0rder of High Court set aside and that of Labour Court restored. 
Article 226-Finding of fact recorded by Labour Court that workman 
did not complete 240 days-High Court in writ petition by disengaged D 
worker setting aside order of Labour Court and directing his reinstatement 
with back wages-Held, High Court erred in allowing writ petition-Workman 
was also not entitled to back wages as per the principle of "no work-no 
pay"-/ndustrial Disputes Act, 1947-Disengaged daily wage worker-Claim 
for reinstatement and back wages-Delay/Laches. 
Industrial Disputes Act, I 94 7: 
Reference to Labour Court after 13 years-Held, a dispute which is 
stale could not be subject matter of reference-Delay/Laches. 
Respondent No. 1, a daily wage worker in the appellant Bank, was 
included in the list of such workers for the year 1975-76, but was not included 
in the list for the year 1976-77. His representation was rejected. However, he 
again made representation relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in 
HD. Singh's* case. The Central Government on 25.1.1989, ultimately, referred 
E 
F 
the matter for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court. The Labour Court rejected the claim on the ground of G 
delay and !aches as also on merits holding that since the workman did not 
complete the service of 240 days, he was not entitled to benefit of s.25-F of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, nor could he be given the benefit of decision 
in H.D. Singh 's case. But his writ petition was allowed by the High Court 
ordering his reinstatement with partial back wages. Aggrieved, the employer H 
597 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Bank filed the present appeal. 
On the questions: (i) whether the High Court in a petition under Article 
226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the correctness of the judgment of 
the Labour Court on a dispute arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, was 
justified in examining the policy of the R.B.I. on the touchstone of Article 14 
B of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the High Court, in proceedings under 
Article 226, can interfere with the findings of the Labour Court on factual 
issues in the absence of a challenge on the ground of perversity and can award 
relief on a ground not raised before the Tribunal; and (iii) whether a person 
can be ordered reinstatement even when he was engaged on day-to-day basis 
C and it is not established that he was working on regular post and without 
establishing any right to hold any post particularly when respondent No.I 
had worked only for 58 days. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: l. The High Court has clearly erred in examining the legality 
of the policy and giving relief solely on the ground that it found the policy and 
actions of the appellant contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of 
India. It is pertinent to notice that the High court has taken into consideration 
an entirely new aspect which was neither pleaded by the petitioner in the writ 
petition nor was claimed in the claim statement filed before the Labour Court, 
E without giving an opportunity to the parties to effectively reply to the same. 
(605-8-CJ 
F 
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., JT (2006) 4 
SC 420 and Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani & Ors., 
(2005] 5 SCC JOO, relied on. 
2.1. Respondent No.I has worked for 58 days on casual basis. There is 
no cross-examination on this aspect. Besides, respondent No. I was 
discharged in July 1976 and the reference was made on 25.1.1989 nearly 
after 13 years. A dispute which is stale could not be a subject matter of 
reference. The High Court, on erroneous view of the facts and circumstances 
G of the case, allowed his petition without taking into account the categoric 
finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court that he had not completed 240 
days in the Bank and held that this will not make much difference. Such a 
casual approach is not warranted. Orde

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