STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. versus ARJUNLAL RAJAK

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

)· 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ARJUNLAL RAJAK 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Re-instatement-Appointment of incumbent on daily wages-Abolition 
of unit in which working and his termination thereof-Re-instatement with c 
full back wages as incumbent worked for more than 240 days in a calendar 
year-Correctness of-Held: Incumbent being daily wager does not hold 
status as an employee-Appointment not made in conformity with 
constitutional provisions, incumbent not entitled to the constitutional 
protection-For non-compliance of section 25-F workman could be D 
·...\ 
reinstated with or without back wages, but Scheme being abolished, not 
'j 
entitled to reinstatement-However, monetary compensation is granted to 
serve interest of justice and also entitled to wages for the period he worked 
pursuant to the order of reinstatement-Constitution of India, I950-Article 
I 36, 309-Industrial Disputes Act, I947-Section 25-F. 
Constitution of India, I950-Article 3I I-Constitutional protection E 
under-Entitlement of-Held: For acquiring status as employees and 
constitutional protection, all appointments must be in conformity with the 
constitutional Scheme, Rules made in terms of proviso to Article 309 or in 
terms of legislative Act-Article 309 proviso and Articles 14 and 15. 
~ 
F 
-/ 
Respondent was appointed by the appellants without giving any offer of 
appointment in writing and also the Recruitment Rules were not followed. It is 
aUeged that he was engaged in the production division of forest department which 
stood abolished. Thereafter, his services were terminated. Respondent challenged 
his termination on the ground that he had worked in various departments for 
more than 240 days in a year and his services were terminated without complying G 
> ~ 
with the mandatory requirements of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
' 
1947. Labour Court directed the respondent to be reinstated with full back wages. 
· High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal 
Allowing the appea~ the Court 
625 
H 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD I.I. A daily wager does not hold a post The Forest Department is a 
wing of the State. Its employees hold a status. For acquiring that status and for 
obtaining the constitutional protection in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution 
of India, all appointments must be made in conformity with the Constitutional 
Scheme as laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as 
well as the Rules made in terms of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution 
B of India or in terms of a Legislative Act. Concededly, while appointing the 
respondent, the constitutional provision or the statutory provisions had not been 
followed. The.refore, the righ_ts and liabilities of the parties are to be governed by 
the terms' of the contract and/or the provisions of the statute applicable in relation 
thereto. [628-E-G] 
c 
1.2. While terminating the services of the respondent the appellants had 
not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial 
Disputes Act and, thus, ordinarily, the workman could have been directed to be 
reinstated with or without back wages, but it is also well settled that a project or 
a Scheme or an office itself is abolished, relief by way of reinstatement is not 
D granted. [628-G-H; 629-A] 
1.3. Even for grant of back wages, application of mind on the part of the 
Industrial Court is imperative, as a relief of full back wages may not be granted 
automatically. (630-C] 
E 
1.4. In view the fact that the services of the respondent were terminated on 
the ground that the production unit in which he was working itself had been closed, 
interest of justice would be sub-served if a monetary compensation of Rs. 10,000/ 
- is granted to him. He would be entitled to the wages for the period he had actually 
worked pursuant to or in furtherance of the order of the Labour Court as also of 
F the High Court upon his reinstatement. (630-F-GJ 
G 
H 
Mahendra L. Jain & Ors. v. Indore Development Authority & Ors., (2005] 
1 SCC 639; U.P. State Brassware Corpon. Ltd & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey, 
(20061 1 sec 479, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1266 of2006 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 4.03.2004 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 599 of 2000. 
B.S. Banthia for the Appellants. 
Mrs. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. 
·" 

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