RAJKUMAR S/O ROHITLAL MISHRA versus JALAGAON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 01-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 705 
RAJKUMAR S/O ROHITLAL MISHRA 
V. 
JALAGAON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
(Civil Appeal No. 855 of 2013 etc.) 
FEBRUARY 01, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
• 
Labour Laws - Termination - Of temporary daily wagers 
A 
B 
- Delay of 8-10 years on parl of four workmen and delay of 
2-3 years on the parl of one workman in approaching the C 
Labour Commissioner for conciliation -
On failure of 
conciliation, disputes referred to Labour Courl - Award by 
Labour Court holding that termination was illegal and 
reinstatement directed - Writ Petition - Single Judge holding 
that dispute could not have been referred to Labour Courl due 
D 
to inordinate delay in approaching the Labour Commissioner 
- However, direction to Management to pay Rs. 10,0001- each 
to the workmen - Order upheld by Division Bench of High 
Courl- On appeal, held: Orders passed by Single Judge as 
well as Division Bench of High Courl was correct - However, 
E 
Rs. 10,0001- not sufficient to compensate the workmen - The 
workmen who approached the Commissioner after 8-10 years 
entitled to Rs. 50, 0001- each and who approached after 2-3 
years entitled to Rs. 1,00,0001-. 
The five appellants were temporarily employed with 
F 
the respondent-Corporation on different dates on daily 
wages as and when work was available. They were 
terminated from their services on different dates. 
Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 approached the Labour 
Commissioner for conciliation after 8 to 10 years from the 
G 
date of their termination. Appellant No. 5 approached the 
· Labour Commissioner for conciliation after 2 to 3 years 
from the date of his termination. When the conciliation 
failed, the disputes were referred to Labour Court. 
705 
H 
• 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S. C.R. 
A Labour Court passed the award holding that the 
termination was illegal and directed reinstatement of the 
appellants. 
Respondent-Corporation filed Writ Petition against 
the order of Labour Court. Single Judge of High Court 
8 allowed the petition and quashed the award holding that 
the dispute could not have been referred to the Labour 
Court for adjudication as there was inordinate delay in 
approaching the Labour Commissioner. However, the 
Court directed the respondent-Corporation to pay Rs. 
C 10,000/- each to the appellants by way of compensation. 
D 
In writ appeals, Division Bench of High Court upheld the 
order of Single Judge. Hence the present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: In view of the concurrent finding recorded by 
the High Court that the appellants were temporarily 
appointed on daily wages as and when work was 
available and they were not posted on regular basis 
against sanctioned post, there is no reason and 
E justification to interfere with the same. However, the 
direction for payment of Rs.10,000/- each to the appellants 
will not compensate the appellants. Hence, the appellants 
who approached for the conciliation after 8 to 10 years 
from the date of termination are entitled to a sum of 
F Rs.50,000/- each whereas one of the appellants who has 
approached the Conciliation Officer within 2 to 3 years 
shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. [Para 6) 
[709-F-H; 710-A] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 855 
H 
of 2013. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.09.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in LPA 
No. 142 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2410 of 2005. 
RAJKUMAR S/O ROHITLAL MISHRA v. JALAGAON 707 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
WITH 
A 
C.A. No. 861-864 of 2013 
Anish R. Shah, Sunil Kumar Ve~ma for the Appellant. 
Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was deliveied by 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellants have preferred these appeals against 
C 
the common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench 
of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Letters Patent 
Appeals arising out of Writ Petitions whereby the order passed 
by the Learned Single Judge quashing the award passed by 
the Labour Court, Jalagaon, has been affirmed. 
D 
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. All the 
appellants were employed with the Respondent Corporation on 
daily wages or on temporary basis. One of the appellant was 
engaged as daily coolie in Construction Department of the 
E 
Corporation, some time in 1989 and his services were 
terminated after two years in 1991. Secoi1d appellant was 
appointed as casual labour in Building Department o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.