STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SARJEET SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJAS THAN 
v. 
SARJEET SINGH AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, I 947: 
c 
ss. 2(oo)(bb), 25-G and 25-H-Termination of contract of employment-
Pump driver-Employed by Gram Panchayat for a fixed term and specific 
purpose under a Scheme funded equally by Gram Panchayat and State 
Government-On scheme coming to an end, services of worker terminated--
Labour Court directing reinstatement with 30% back wages-Award affirmed 
'. 
by High Court-Held, Labour Court misdirected itself in holding that order 
D of termination was in violation of ss. 25-G and 25-H- If Gram Panchayat 
was in Management of Scheme, employer would be Panchayat and not the 
State-Labour Court and High Court failed to consider this vital aspect-
However, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article I 42 of the Constitution, 
State directed to pay Rs.30,0001-to worker-Constitution of India-Article 
142. 
E 
A scheme, known as 'Jal Pradyot Vojna' was made for supply of water 
in the villages of Rajasthan. The State Government and the Gram Panchayat 
were to contribute equally towards its cost. The scheme was to be completed 
by 7. t t. 1997. The Gram Panchayat concerned employed respondent no. 1 as 
F 
pump driver under the said scheme, initially for a period of six months w.e.f. 
19.9.1996. The term of his employment was extended from time to time till 
7.11.1997 on which date the scheme came to an end and services ofrespondent 
no. 1 were terminated. Respondent no. 1 tiled an application before the Labour 
Welfare and Conciliation Officer for his regularization. He later filed an 
application before the Industrial Court which passed an award of his 
G reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages holding that 
while terminating the services mandatory provisions of sections 25-G and 25-
H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with. The State 
Government after unsuccessfully challenging the said award in a writ petition 
as also in an intra-court appeal before the High Court, filed the present appeal. 
H 
614 
..
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SAR.TEET SINGH 
615 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. Although the Labour Court possesses discretionary 
jurisdiction in moulding the relief in terms of Section 11-A of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, the power thereunder must be judicially exercised. In 
A 
the instant case, respondent No. I was appointed under a Scheme for a specific 
purpose. The fact that his initial appointment was for a period of six months B 
is not disputed. The concept of there being 'dual employer' although may not 
be unknown in industrial jurisprudence but the Labour Court misdirected 
itself in holding that the termination of his services by the appellant was illegal 
being in violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. lfthe Gram Panchayat 
was in management of the Scheme, the employer would be the Panchayat and C 
not the State. In fact, respondent No. 1 impleaded both of them as parties. 
The Labour Court and consequently the High Court failed to consider this 
vital asptct of the matter. [621-A-CI 
Municipal Council, Samra/av. Raj Kumar, [2006] 3 SCC 81; Municipal 
Council, Samra/av. Sukhwinder Kaur, (2006) 7 SCALE 614 and The Ha1yana D 
State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Subhash Chand & Anr., (2006) 2 
SCALE 614, relied on. 
S.M Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karna/aka, [2003[ 4 
sec 27, referred to. 
1.2. Assuming that in terminating the services of respondent no. I, 
violation of Section 25-G or 25-H of the Act occurred (although there is no 
factual basis therefor), but in any event, the same would not mean that the 
Labour Court should have automatically passed an award of reinstatement in 
service with back wages. [621-Fl 
State of M.P. and Ors. v. Arjunla/ Rajak, (2006) 2 SCALE 610, referred 
to. 
E 
F 
2. Although the Court ordinarily would have set aside the impugned 
award and consequently the judgment of the High Court, but in exercise of 
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the State is directed G 
to pay a sum of Rs. 30, 000/- to respondent no. 1. [621-F-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4551 of2006. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 2.5.2005 of the High Court of H 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A Judicature for Rajasthan in at Jodhpur D.B. Civil Special Appel No. 154/2005. 
Kumar Kartikey and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appe

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