LexSUDARSHAN RAJPOOT versus U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 957 SUDARSHAN RAJPOOT v. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION · (Civil Appeal Nos.10353-10354 of 2014) A NOVEMBER 18, 2014 B . [V. GOPALA GOWDAAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Labour Laws: Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 2(s), 6-N, 6-R and 6-Q -Appellant-workman employed as driver with the respondent-Corporation - While on duty, due to C technical fault in the vehicle, the vehicle met with an accident - Workman also sustained grievous injuries - Name of the workman struck-off from the rolls of post of driver and removed from the services - Industrial dispute raised - Labour court held that termination of services of the workman was contrary D to law and directed his reinstatement without break in service with all consequential reliefs-High Court set aside the award of reinstatement and consequential reliefs and held that the workmen was only entitled to consolidated compensation calculated from the date of his engagement till the date of E his disengagement - On appeal, held: The workman was engaged on permanent basis- In view of Schedule V, entry 10 of central Industrial Disputes Act, the Corporation is prohibited from engaging the workman as a casual or temporary workman on permanent basis - The workman had F rendered service more than 240 days in a calendar year until his termination- Thus his engagement on contractual basis is statutorily prohibited - The same amounts to unfair labour practice u/s. 2(ra) and is punishable u/s. 25U of the central Act - The termination order amounts to retrenchment- Non- G compliance of the statutory provisions u/ss. 6-N, 6-R and 6- Q has rendered the termination order void ab inito in law - The labour court was justified in passing award of reinstatement with consequential benefits- The High Court 957 H 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A erroneously set aside the award by interfering with findings of fact in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction u/Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution - The injuries sustained by the workman are employment injuries suffered during the course of employment - Therefore, the Corporation is ·statutorily B obliged u/s. 47 of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 to provide alternate equivalent job to the workman- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 2(ra), 25T, and 25U, Schedule \/, Entry No. 10 - The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) c Act, 1995 - s. 47 - Constitution of India, 1950 -Arts. 226 and 227. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The respondent-Corporation has neither produced documentary evidence nor showed before the D Labour Court that the appellant-workman was appointed on contract basis. The fact that he deposited Rs.20001- towa rds security amount with the respondent- Corporation indicates that he was working as a Driver on a permanent basis. In view of the Schedule V, entry E No.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the respondent- Corporation is prohibited from engaging the appellant- workman as a badli, casual or temporary workman to work on permanent basis. The fact that he had been continuously working for more than 3 years and he had F rendered more than 240 days of service as the driver in a calendar year until his termination order and yet he being engaged on a contractual basis in the respondent- Corporation is statutorily prohibited. The same amounts to an unfair labour practice as defined uls. 2(ra) rlw. s. G 25T, which action of the Corporation is punishable uls. 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act. At the time of termination his juniors were working on permanent basis. Therefore, the same is another added fact to accept the plea of the appellant-workman by the Labour H Court that he was appointed as a permanent workman f- SUDARSHAN RAJPOOT v. U.P. STATE ROAD 959 TRANSPORT CORPORATION in the respondent-Corporation as a driver. [Paras 16 and A 17][970·B-E][971-E-F] 1.2 The employer-EW1 admitted that the appellant- workman was appointed on permanent basis in the post of driver. The finding of fact was recorded by the Labour Court accepting the evidence of EW-1 that the appellant- B workman has worked continuously from 11.3.1997 to 29.07.2000 in the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly come to conclusion and held that the appellant-workman has rendered more than 240 days continuous service from the date of his C appointme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.