SANTURAM YADAV AND ANR. versus SECRETARY, KRISHI UPAJ M.S. SEMETARA AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 852 · Decided: 16-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 OJ 2 S.C.R. 852 
SANTURAM YADAV AND ANR. 
v. 
SECRETARY, KRISHI UPAJ M.S. SEMETARA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.1750-1751 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 16, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.25F - Daily wage 
workers -
Termination of -
Claim for re-instatement -
c Dismissed by Labour Court on ground of failure of the workers 
to establish that they worked for more than 240 days 
continuously in one calendar year - High Court affirmed the 
order of Labour Court - On facts, held: Relevant documents 
and communications, though available with the workers, were 
D not placed before the Labour Court and High Court - Matter 
therefore remitted to Labour Court to consider the claim of the 
workers afresh. 
Appellants were working on daily wage basis. At the 
threat of removal, they approached the Labour Court. A 
E compromise was entered into between the parties in 
terms of which the respondent-management agreed to 
reinstate the appellants. The Labour Court passed award 
in terms of the compromise. 
F 
The appellants were later dismissed from service. 
The claim laid by them for re-instatement was dismissed 
by the Labour Court on ground of their failure to establish 
that they worked for more than 240 days continuously in 
one calendar year. The High Court affirmed the order of 
G Labour Court. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants stated that 
though they had adequate materials in support of their 
claim for reinstatement, however, it was not placed before 
852 
SANTURAM YADAV AND ANR. v. SECRETARY, 
853 
KRISHI UPAJ M.S. SEMETARA 
the Labour Court and the High Court, and accordingly 
A 
prayed that the same be considered by this Court in order 
to render substantial justice to them. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The compromise memo between the 
8 
workmen and the management, followed by the award of 
the Labour Court as well as the materials furnished about 
the number of days on which the appellants worked and 
the wages received, clearly support their stand. In view 
of the peculiar facts, namely, the stand taken by the 
C 
Management in the form of compromise agreeing to 
reinstate and provide seniority to the appellants from the 
date of their first appointment, as evidenced in the 
"Compromise Deed", the information/materials 
mentioned above cannot be ignored lightly, though not D 
projected before the Labour Court and the High Court. 
Considering the abundant materials which were 
unfortunately not placed before the Labour Court and in 
order to give an opportunity to these workmen, the order 
of the Labour Court, and the order of the High Court are 
E 
set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court 
with a direction to consider the claim of the workmen 
afresh. The workmen are permitted to place relevant 
documents in support of their claim before the Labour 
Court. The respondents/management are also permitted 
F 
to place the relevant material, if any, in support of their 
defence. Both the workmen and the management are 
permitted to place their relevant materials in support of 
their respective stand and thereafter, the Labour Court is 
directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in 
G 
accordanc~ with law, after affording opportunity to both 
parties. [Para 9) [858-B-H; 859-A-B] 
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi 
and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, referred to. 
H 
A 
B 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 O] 2 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2006) 4 sec 1 
referred to 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
1750-1751 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.11.2006 of the 
Learned Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh 
at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 5508 of 2006 and final order 
dated 6.11.2007 passed by Division Bench in Writ Appeal 
c (P.R.) No. 6823 of 2007 
D 
Akshat Shrivastava, lnderjeet Yadav, Raj Kumar Gupta and 
Dharam Bir Raj Vohra for the Appellants. 
Milind Kumar, A. Patnaik and D.B. Ray for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1 Leave granted. 
2. These appeals are directed against the final order dated 
E 02.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge of the High 
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 5508 of 
2006 and final order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the Division 
Bench of the same High Court in W.A. (P.R.) No. 6823 of 2007 
whereby the "High Court dismissed the writ petition and the writ 
F appeal filed by the appe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.