RAJASTHAN LALIT KALA ACADEMY versus RADHEY SHYAM

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 11-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 820 
RAJASTHAN LAUT KALA ACADEMY 
v. 
RADHEY SHYAM 
(Civil Appeal No. 4331 of 2008) 
JULY.11, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
LabourLaws:lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947; Ss.2(00), 17, 
25-F and 33(C)(2): 
C 
Termination/Retrenchment - Termination of Services of 
Workmen - Industrial Dispute -Award by Labour Court direct-
ing employer to reinstate the workman in question and for pay-
ment of backwages -
Non-compliance, by Employer - Held: 
Compli,ance with the provisions of S.25-F of the Act by employer 
D mandatory while retrenching a workman - Finding of Labour 
Gour as affirmed by High Court to the effect that employer failed 
to adduce any evidence in support of the plea that in lieu of 
notice in terms of S. 25-F of the Act a sum of Rs. 18001- had 
been paid to the workman in question thus order of termination 
E was illegal hence order of Courts below do not suffer from any 
perversity warranting interference - However, the Courts below 
erred in determining the question of reinstatement and pay-
ment of back wages - Though illegality of the order of termina-
tion is one of the prime considerations for determining quan-
F 
tum of backwages but it cannot be the sole criterion therefoe -
Hence, the award of Labour Court to that extent cannot be sus-
tained - In the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of 
;ustice would be met if instead and in place of reinstatement 
and backwages, a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs is to be paid to the work-
G man in question by way of compensation ~ Directions issued -
Retrenchment - Compensation. 
Respondent was appointed on June 6, 1980 as Jun-
ior Clerk by the appellant and on April 4, 1981 his services 
were terminated. Aggrieved the workman raised an in-
H 
820 
..._ 
RAJASTHAN LALIT KALA ACADEMY v. RADHEY 
821 
-SHYAM 
~ i 
dustrial dispute. The Labour Court passed an award di-
A 
recting reinstatement of the respondent with effect from 
September 24, 1983 with 50% back-wages. The respon-
dent claims to have submitted his joining report but he 
was not taken back on duty by appellant. Instead, the 
~ -1 
appellant challenged the validity of the award by filing a 
writ petition. The-petition was dismissed by the High Court. B 
Later, the services of respondent were terminated on 
January 31, 1985, treating him to be in service with effect 
from November 17, 1984. Respondent again raised an in-
dustrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. c 
The respondent also filed an application under Section 
33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of 
wages for certain period. Labour Court held that the man-
agement had failed to adduce any evidence in support of 
its plea that a demand draft in the sum of Rs. 1800/- was 
-~ 
given to the respondent in lieu of notice in terms of Sec-
D 
ti on 25-F of the Act, the appellant had failed to comply with 
the statutory requirements and, therefore, order terminat-
ing services of respondent was arbitrary and illegal and 
had been passed in a ma/a fide manner in order to victim-
ize the respondent. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed E 
reinstatement of the respondent with continuity in service 
and payment of 25% back-wages from the date of termina-
tion of services to the date of award and also payment of 
arrears of wages as claimed by the respondent. Appellant 
challenged the award by filing writ petition, which was dis-
F 
>-
~ 
missed by the Single Judge of High Court and Appeal filed 
thereagainst was dismissed by the Division Bench of the 
High Court. Hence, the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
Held: 1. 1. It is trite that in the event of retrenchment G 
of a workman, employed in any industry, continuously for 
"" -+ 
not less than one year under an employer, compliance 
with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act, in particular clauses (a) and (b) thereof is man-
datory. [Para 14] [827 E-F] 
H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
t 
~ 
A 
1.2. In the light of the pleadings and undisputed docu-
ments available on record, the Court is convinced that 
the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the ap-
. pellant has failed to adduce any evidence in support of 
their plea that a sum of Rs.1800/- had been paid to the 
B respondent, does not suffer from any perversity. Thus, it 
'r -
cannot be said that the Labour Court or the High Cou.rt 
has committed any illegality, warranting interference with 
the said concurrent findi

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