RANBIR SINGH versus EXECUTIVE ENG. P.W.D

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 02-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
RANBIR SINGH
v.
EXECUTIVE ENG. P.W.D
(Civil Appeal No. 4483 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2021
[K. M. JOSEPH AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Labour Laws – Public authority – Termination of daily-wager
– Termination found illegal due to procedural defect, namely,
violation of mandatory provisions of s.25F – Appellant-daily wager
was reinstated after the award of the Labour Court – High Court
set aside the award – On appeal, held: Appellant could not adduce
convincing evidence to establish retention of junior workers, as
alleged by him – No finding of unfair trade practice, as such – In
such circumstances, reinstatement cannot be automatic –
Transgression of s.25F being established, suitable compensation
to appellant would be the appropriate remedy – Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 – s.25F.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. This is a case where it is found that, though
the appellant had worked for 240 days, appellant’s service was
terminated, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The authority involved in
this case, apparently, is a public authority. At the same time, it
is common case that the appellant was a daily wager and the
appellant was not a permanent employee. It is relevant to note
that, in the award answering Issue No.1, which was, whether the
termination of the appellant’s service was justified and in order,
and if not, what was the amount of back wages he was entitled
to, it was found, inter alia, that the appellant could not adduce
convincing evidence to establish retention of junior workers.
There is no finding of unfair trade practice, as such. In such
circumstances, the principle, which is enunciated by this Court,
in the decision, which is referred to in Raj Kumar case, would
be more appropriate to follow. In other words, it is found that
reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 102
102
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
103
Section 25F being established, suitable compensation would be
the appropriate remedy. [Para 6][107-C-E]
1.2. In such circumstance, noticing that, though the
appellant was reinstated after the award of the Labour Court in
2006, the appellant has not been working since 2009 following
the impugned order of the High Court, and also taking note of
the fact that the appellant was, in all likelihood, employed
otherwise, also the interest of justice would be best subserved
with modifying the impugned order and directing that in place
of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), as lumpsum
compensation, appellant be paid Rs.3.25 lakhs (Rupees Three
Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand), as compensation, taking into
consideration also the fact that the appellant had already been
paid Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as
compensation. [Para 7][107-F-H]
State of Uttarakhand and another v. Raj Kumar, (2019)
14 SCC 353 : [2019] 1 SCR 94 – relied on.
Ajaypal Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation,
(2015) 6 SCC 321 ; Secretary, State of Karnataka and
others v. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
[2006] 3 SCR 953 ; and Durgapur Casual Workers
Union andothers v. Food Corporation of India and
others, (2015) 5 SCC 786 : [2014] 12 SCR 377 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2015) 6 SCC 321
referred to
Para 3
[2006] 3 SCR 953
referred to
Para 3
[2019] 1 SCR 94
relied on
Para 3
[2014] 12 SCR 377
referred to
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4483
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No.15642 of 2007.
RANBIR SINGH v. EXECUTIVE ENG. P.W.D
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Manjeet Singh Dalal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Beena, Satish Kumar, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Samar Vijay Singh, AAG, Vishwa Pal Singh, Ms. Nandita Jha,
Y.P. Singh, Anil Kumar, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
1. Heard Shri Manjeet Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant and also Shri Samar Vijay Singh, learned AAG for the
respondent. By the impugned judgment the High Court has interfered
with the award passed by the Labour Court, Hisar dated 13th October,
2006 and directed that appellant would be entitled to lump sum
compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only)
which was to be paid within three months of the order. The High Court
notes the claim of the appellant to be that he w

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