LexSTATEOFU.P versus CHARAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2015] 3 S.C.R. 806 STATEOFU.P v. CHARAN SINGH (Civil Appeal No.2381 of2007) MARCH 26, 2015 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 - ss. 6 N and 4 K - Retrenchment - Termination of the services of tube-well operator since he was a temporary employee - Workman given one month's wages in lieu of notice - Challenge to - D Industrial tribunal held the termination illegal, passed an award for reinstatement of workman but did not grant any back wages- In compliance thereof, workman offered appointment letter to the post of fisherman - However, workman refused to join despite repeated reminders - Thereafter, High Court E held that the State Government was liable to pay the entire amount due to him, from the date of passing of the award for reinstatement ie 24.2.1997 to 31.1.2005 only- On appeal, held: High Court rightly held that the State is liable to pay the F entire amount due to the workman for the period, as the State has kept the workman out of job for many years arbitrarily. and unreasonably despite the award of reinstatement of the respondent on an equivalent post - Thus, not reporting for the duty of fisherman which was not an equivalent post cannot G said to be unjustified on the part of the workman - Workman continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year- Work which was done by the workman still continues to exist in the establishment of the appellant - Conditions under the provisions of ss. 6-N and 6-W were not complied with by the H appellant- Thus, the termination was illegal and courts below 806 STATE OF U. P. v. CHARAN SINGH 807 rightly passed award of reinstatement- However, Industrial A tribunal erred in not awarding back wages and High Court was not justified in not awarding back wages from the date of his termination till the date of passing of the award even though he was gainfully employed - Furthermore, workman has been contesting the matter for four decades - Thus, in B exercise of power u/o. XL/ r. 33 CPC, workman to be awarded back wages for the relevant period, even though the workman did not file a separate writ petition questioning the same - Direction issued to the State to pay 50% back wages in favour C of the workman from the date of the termination ·order till the date of the Award- Order passed by the High Court awarding full back wages for the period 24.02.1997 to 31.01.2005 upheld. Disposing of the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1 The High Court rightly held that the State is liable to pay the entire amount due to the workman for the period 24.2.1997 to 31.1.2005, as the E State has kept the workman out of job for many years arbitrarily and unreasonably despite the Award of reinstatement of the respondent on an equivalent post which was passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, not reporting for the duty of fisherman offered to him by the F appellant on the ground that the said post is not equivalent to the post of the Tube-well Operator cannot be said to be unjustified on the part of the respondent. Attributing the fault on the respondent for not reporting to the post offered to him, is once again unjustified on G the part of the employer. Thus, the principle "no work· no pay" does not have any significance to the fact situation of the instant case. [Paras 12, 20 and 21] 816- B-C; 825-C-D] H 808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A 1.2 The matter of termination of the services of the workman of the said department can be legally adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal as the matter is covered under the provisions of the Act read with the Second Schedule in Entry No.10. Thus, the courts below B rightly held that the dispute raised by the workman in relation to the termination of his services by the appellant is an industrial dispute. [Para 12] [816-E-G] 1.3 The respondent-workman has continuously C worked for 240 days in a calendar year and the Industrial Tribunal rightly recorded the finding of fact on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record holding that the work which was being done by the respondent-workman 0 still continues to exist in the establishment of the appellant. It was deposed before the Industrial Tribunal that the work of Tube-well Operator has now been taken over by other workmen, such as "Machhuwa" and that some Tube-well Operators were appointed on other E posts as well. Thus, in view of the statements made, it is amply clear that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.