NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPN. versus JAWAHAR LAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 28-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.~ 
~ 
NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPN. 
A 
v. 
JA WAHAR LAL AND ANR. 
MARCH 28, 2007 
[DR. ARinT PASA YAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
-i 
Labour Laws: 
-1-
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
c 
s.6N-Termination of services of workman-No salary for one month 
in lieu of notice offered-No retren~hment compensation offered-Held, taking 
note of the fact that workman was engaged elsewhere gainfully, direction of 
reinstatement is maintained but without back wages. 
Respondent no. 1 was engaged on casual basis as Survey Boy by the D 
appellant-Corporation on 3.10.1977 • His services were terminated on 
.. 
..,, 
15.2.1981. A reference under section 4-K of the U.P. Indpstrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 was made to the Labour Court which held that the worker had 
completed more than one year of service and requirements of section 6N of 
the Act, having not been complied with, the order of termination was void. It E 
directed reinstatement of the worker with full back wages. The writ petition 
of the employer having been dismissed by the High Court, it filed the present 
appeal 
Allowing .he appeal in part, the Court 
-' 
F 
HELD: The conclusion by the High Court that the worker had completed 
• 
more than 240 days _!!Ontinuous service in one calendar year was arrived at 
without any basis. The finding of the Labour Court that no alternative job 
was offered, accepted by the High Court, is also contrary to the record. But 
the finding of the Labour Court and the High Court is to the effect that there 
was no material to show that salary for one month in lieu of the notice and G 
retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman, which be refused to 
accept. These are findings of fact and the appellant could not refer to any 
material to take a contrary view. Therefore, the orders of the Labour Coprt 
';I 
and the High Court appear to be justified. In the circumstances, taking note 
479-
H 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 4 S.C.R. 
A of the fact that the worker was engaged gainfully elsewhere, the direction for 
reinstatement is maintained but without any back wages. 
[Paras 9 and 10) (482-A-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1600 of2007. 
B 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Pet:tion No. 10196 of 1983. 
S.K. Dhingra and Shefali Dhingra for the Appellants 
Bharat Sangal for the Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Leave gra.'lted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by the learned 
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed 
D by the appellant. 
Background facts in a _nutshell are as follows: 
A reference, under Section 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Act'), was made to the Labour 
E court, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'). The following 
disputes was referred for adjudication "whether termination of services of Sri 
Jawahar Lal S/o Sri Bapai, Survey Boy on 15 .2.1981 by the employer was just 
and/or legal?" 
According to applicant-Jawahar Lal, he was employed by the present 
F appellant with effect from 3 .10.1977 as a Survey Boy and remained in 
continuance of service till the termination of service. He demanded for 
permanency stating that he is. entitled to be declared permanent as per the 
existing rule. He claimed that his 'services were terminated without assigning 
any reason, without any prior notice or pay or retrenchment compensation 
G and, therefore, there was violation of Section 6N of the U.P. Act. Stand of 
the present appellant was that the reference was illegal, the workman had not 
made any demand for re-appointment he had also not preferred any appeal 
under the Certified Standing Order. He·was engaged on casual basis at the 
rate of Rs.6/- per day when the survey work was necessary and when the 
survey work was over he was offered another job which he did not accept. 
H He was also given notice-pay in lieu of one month notice and retrenchment 
'y 
NATIONAL THERMALPOWERCORPN.v.JAWAHARLAL[PASAYAT,J.] 
481 
compensation which he refused to accept. 
The applicant - Jawahar Lal filed a rejoinder affidavit stating that the 
appeal can be filed only in respect of orders passed under Rule 20 of the 
Standing Order. Since he had worked for more than 240 days, observance of 
A 
the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Act was necessary.

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