STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus MAN SINGH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 13-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
v. 
MAN SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Ss. I I-A and 25-F: 
A 
B 
c 
Termination of services of a conductor/workman by employer-State 
Road Transport Corporation-Industrial Dispute-labour Court directing 
reinstatement ofthe workman with back wages-Affirmed by High Court-On 
appeal, Held: Though the Labour Court has jurisdiction to pass an award 
directing re-instatement of the workman in terms of Section I I-A of the Act D 
bllt the discretionmy relief must be granted upon by the Court taking into 
consideration all attending circumstances-The workman was appointed on a 
temporary basis-Since dispute was raised after 12 years of the incident, it 
was unlikely that he remained unemployed for such a long time-Both the 
Courts below have failed to take into consideration all these aspects-Jn the 
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it would be wholly unjust to E 
direct reinstatement of the workman after a period of 30 years-It would be 
appropriate if the workman in question is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 
instead and in place of his reinstatement in service with back wages-Directions 
issued. · · 
The respondent-workman was appointed w.e.f. 20.07.1974 on 
temporary basis by the appellant-employer, a State Road Transport 
Corporation. His services were terminated on the ground of misconduct 
F 
etc. on 23.07.1975. He raised an industrial dispute on 14.9.1986 which was 
referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. The Labour 
Court held that the appellant-Corporation had failed to comply with the G 
mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 
while terminating the services of the workman in question, and therefore, 
set aside the order of termination of the services of the respondent and 
also granted him back-wages. Aggrieved, the employer filed a writ petition, 
121 
H 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The Labour Court indisputably had the jurisdiction to 
pass an award directing reinstatement of the respondent in terms of 
B Section I IA of the Industrial Dispute Act. (124-A( 
1.2. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent-workman 
was employed in accordance with the recruitment rules framed by the 
Appellant Corporation. No material has also been brought on record to 
show that the vacancy was a regular one or in filling up of the said vacancy 
C the constitutional requirements as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of 
the Constitution of India were complied with. (124-B-CI 
1.3. The workman in question had raised a dispute in 1986, after a 
period of about 12 years. It may be true that in an appropriate case, delay 
D in raising the dispute would have resulted in rejection of the claim for 
back-wages for the period during which the workman remains absent. But 
the discretionary relief must be granted upon taking into consideration 
all attending circumstances. The appellant is a statutory Corporation. 
Keeping in view the fact that the respondent-workman was appointed on 
a temporary basis, it was unlikely that he remained unemployed for such 
E a long time. In any event, it would be wholly unjust at this distance of 
time i.e. after a period of more than 30 years, to direct reinstatement of 
the respondent in service. However, the Labour Court or the High Court 
did not consider these aspects of the matter. (124-C-D-EJ 
F 
Gurmal Singh v. Principal, Government College of Education and Ors., 
(2000( 9 sec 496, relied on. 
2. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, 
instead and in place of the direction for reinstatement of the respondent 
together with back-wages from 1986, interest of justice would be sub-
G served by directing the appellant-Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 
to the workman. (124-F-G( 
H 
State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ghyan Chand, (C.A.No.3214/2006) decided 
Supreme Court, State of MP.and Ors. v. Arjunlal Rajak, (2006) 2 SCALE 
610; Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corporation) v. State of U.P. & Ors., 
• 
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPN r. MAN SINGH [S s: SINHA,).] 
] 23 
(2006) 5 SCALE 145 and Haryana State Electronics Development A 
Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni, (2006) 5 SCALE 164, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4107 of20

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