MIS. BLHAR CAUSTIC & CHEMICALS LTD. versus KRIPA PANDEY

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 18-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 917 
A 
MIS. Bl'HAR CAUSTIC & CHEMICALS LTD. 
t 
v. 
KRIPA PANDEY 
(Civil Appeal No. 1389 of 2001) 
B 
JANUARY 18, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Labour Laws: 
c 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; ss. 2(s) & 10: 
Termination - Workman engaged by contractor serving 
the appellant-company - Termination of services of workman 
by the company - Held: Specific stand of appellant that 
respondent was not its employee but employee of the 
D contractor was neither considered by Labour Court nor by High 
Court while ordering reinstatement of the workman in question 
- Since workman reinstated and superannuated thereafter; 
ends of justice would be best served by directing payment of 
only 50% of back wages to him in terms of award of Labour 
E Court - Directions issued - Contract Labour (Regulation and 
Abolition) Act, 1970 - Engagement of labour. 
According to the respondent, he was working in the 
appellant's factory continuously for certain period and 
allegedly his services were terminated by the appellant-
F company. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court 
for adjudication. The Labour Court held that termination 
of the services of the workman in question was illegal and 
unjustified; and that the respondent was entitled to 
reinstatement and back wages from the date of the 
G institution of the claim. The Writ petition filed by the 
company was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High 
Court. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the 
.. 
Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the present 
appeal. 
H 
917 
M/S. BIHAR CAUSTIC & CHEMICALS LTD. v. 
918 
KRIPA PANDEY [PASAYAT, J.] 
.,; 
~ 
Appellant contended that during pendency of the A 
appeal respondent was reinstated and superannuated on 
6.3.2006; and that High Court's direction for payment of 
back wages was not proper. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: Considering the facts that the specific stand 
of the appellant about the respondent being employee of 
the Contractor was not considered by the Labour Court 
and the High Court, in normal course this Court would 
have. remitted the matter to the High Court for c 
consideration of that aspect. But taking into account the 
fact that even after reinstatement, the respondent has 
superannuated, ends of justice would be best served if 
50% of the back wages in terms of the Labour Court 
Court's award is paid to the respondent. If any payment D 
has already been made as back wages, the same shall be 
adjusted from the amount payable in terms of this order. 
(Para - 9) [921-A-C] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1389 
of 2001. 
E 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 29.6.2000 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in 
LPA No. 484 of 1999 (R). 
Ashok Grover, Praveen Kumar for the Appellant. 
F 
R.R. Dubey, Pawan Upadhyay, Santosh Mishra, Shiv 
Mangal Sharma, Rohit Yadav, Shubhra Goyal and Sharmila 
Upadhyay for the Respondent 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court 
dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. 
Challenge in the Letters Patent Appeal was to the judgment of 
the learned Single Judge of the said High Court. Before the H 
919 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A High Court challenge was to the award of the Labour Court, 
f 
Ranchi in Reference Case No.41/85. The respondent had raised 
~ 
a dispute, inter alia, alleging illegal termination. According to 
him he was working in the appellant's factory continuously from 
1.8.1983 to 12.8.1984 and he was removed from service on 
B 21.9.1984 without any reason. Following dispute was referred 
to the Labour Court for adjudication: 
"Whether the termination of services of Shri Kripa Pandey, 
Driver by the management is proper and justified? If not, 
·c 
whether he is entitled to reinstatement and/or any other 
relief." 
2. The aforesaid reference was made by notification dated 
1.11.1985. Stand of the appellant before the Labour Court was 
that during the period from 1981 to 1984 when the factory of the 
D appellant was under construction it had engaged several 
contractors including one M/s Mishra Brothers for the purpose 
of various works for construction of the factory. During the 
aforesaid period the said Contractor who was authorized to 
engage contract labour under the provisions of the Contract 
E Labour (Regulation a

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