STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. versus SUNIL KUMAR SINGH NEGI

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 804 · Decided: 12-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 804 
A 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. 
II. 
i' 
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH NEGI 
(Civil Appeal No. 1924 of 2008) 
~
MARCH 12, 2008 
I..; 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Labour Law - Termination from service - Labour Court 
directing reinstatement - Employee issuing joining letter in 
.Jr 
c compliance of the 'award - Instead of joining, employee filing 
claim for money for non-reinstatement - Employee not joining 
._
despite employer issuing another letter for joining and 
l 
Assistant Labour Commissioner asking him to join -
~
l 
Subsequently Assistant Labour Commissioner directing 
D payment of the amount claimed on the ground that 
reinstatement should have been at the same place from where 
the services were terminated - Writ petition - Dismissal of by 
cryptic order - On appeal, held: Since the order of High Court 
>--
was non-reasoned without taking into consideration stand of 
<( 
E 
the employer, is not sustainable - Matter remitted to High Court. 
Judgment - Reasons in - requirement of- Held: Right 
to .reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system -
It is requirement of natural justice. 
F 
Respondent had raised industrial dispute against the 
appellant. Labour Court directed his reinstatement and 
payment of back wages and expenses amounting to Rs. 
..,,, ,.. 
6000/-. In compliance of the award, Department by a letter 
asked the responden·~ to join the duties. Respondent 
instead of joining, ~pproached Assistant Labour 
G Commissioner (ALC) lodging a claim of Rs. 92,842/- on 
the ground that ·Department failed to reinstate him: ALC 
directed the Department to give one more letter asking 
him. to join. The same was done, but despite that, 
>--
respondent did not join. ALC himself asked the 
I 
H 
804 
} 
' 
• e 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 
805 
SINGH NEGI 
._,._ 
respondent to join the duties. Respondent filed rejoinder A 
stating that the department had deliberately asked him to 
join the work at different place with a view to harass him. 
ALC directed the appellant to pay the amount claimed by 
the respondent holding that respondent should have 
been reinstated at the same place from where his services B 
were terminated. Department filed writ petition. The writ 
petition was dismissed by cryptic order. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to 
High Court, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1 In view of the specific stand taken by the 
Department in the affidavit giving the factual details, the 
cryptic order passed by the High Court cannot be 
sustained. The absence of reasons has rendered the High D 
....(_ 
Court order not sustainable. [Paras 6] [808-F] 
.. 
1.2 Right to reason is an indispensable part of a 
sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to 
indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. 
Another rationale is that the affected party can know why E 
the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary 
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for 
the order made. [Para 8] [809-A, B] 
':.( 
State of UP vs. Battan and Ors. 2001 (10) SCC 607; 
-. 
State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal RaoPritirao Chawan, 1981 (4) 
F 
SCC 129; Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987 
(2) sec 222; Raj Kishore Jha VS. State of Bihar and Ors. 2003 
(11) sec 519 - relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
G 
1924 of 2008 
_.(_ 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2006 of 
the High Court of Uttranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition (MIS) 
~.J. 820 of 2005. 
H 
806 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
AbhishekAttrey andAnuvrat Sharma fortheAppellants .. 
B 
Puneet Aggrawal and Dr. Kailash Chand for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1) Leave granted. 
2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final 
order dated 26.07.2006 passed by the High Court of 
Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.820 of 2005 
c whereby the High Court dismissed the same affirming the award 
of the Labour Court. 
3) Brief facts: 
The respondent was engaged by the appellant -
D Horticulture Department as daily wager on 07.09.1987 and 
thereafter when the work was available he was engaged from 
time to time. However, he did not work for 240 days in any 
calendar year. He did not work as daily wager w.e.f. 09. 7 .1992 
of his own. In 2001, the respondent after about nine years, raised· 
E an ~ndustrial dispute, which was referred t

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