LexTAPASH KUMAR PAUL versus BSNL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014] 4 S.C.R. 875 TAPASH KUMAR PAUL V. BSNL & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2014) JANUARY 28, 2014 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.) LABOUR LAW: A B Full Ba.ck wages - Termination - Tribunal held that C termination was in violation of s. 25-F of the ID Act and passed an order of reinstatement, however declined to grant back wages to the appellant-workman except Rs. 20, 0001- as compensation - Single Judge of High Court upheld the decision of Tribunal - On appeal, the Division Bench set o aside the award and in lieu of reinstatement passed an order directing that the amount of Rs. 20,000 be paid by way of compensation - On appeal, held: Court may .substitute reinstatement by compensation but the same has to l)e based on justifiable grounds i.e. where the industry is closed or E where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit or where workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and is not fit to be reinstated or when he has lost confidence of the management to discharge duties - In the F instant case, the appellant's case did not fall in any of the categories so as to justify compensation in lieu of reinstatement - There was no justification for the Division Bench to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and single judge - The Division Bench of the High Court gravely erred in ignoring the normal rule that ordinarily a workman whose G service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness - Relying upon the view expressed in *Deepali Gundu case to the effect that the order 875 H 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A of termination affects the entire family of the employee and deprives them of food, education and advancement in life, appellant is reinstated with full back wages since in the absence of full back wages, he will suffer punishment for no B fault of his own - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.25-F. *Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyaypak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and Ors. 2013 (10) SCC 324: 2013 (9) SCR 1; Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar seal and Ors. 2010 (6) SCC 773; Jagbir c Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board & Anr. 2009 (15) SCC 327: 2009 (10) SCR 908; Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd v. Employees of Mis Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 1979 (2) SCC 80: 1979 (1) SCR 563 ; Surendra Kumar Verma & Ors. v. central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- D Labour Court, New Delhi & Anr. 1980 (4) SCC 443: 1981 (1) SCR 789 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 2010 (6) sec 113 Relied on Para 2 E 2009 (10) SCR 908 Relied on Para 2 2013 (9) SCR 1 Relied on Para 3 1979 (1) SCR 563 Relied on Para 3 F 1981 (1) SCR 789 Relied on Para 3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2013 of the G High Court at Calcutta in FM.A. No. 1514 of 2011. Pijush K. Roy, Kakali Roy, Rajan K. Chourasia for the Appellant. R.D. Agrawala, Pavan Kumar, Prithvi Pal for the H Respondents. TAPASH KUMAR PAUL v. BSNL & ANR. 877 The following order of the Court was delivered A ORDER GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who B succeeded in getting an order of reinstatement in his favour by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in Reference No. 27of1997 dated 13th May, 2002, by which the order of reinstatement was passed in his favour. However, the Tribunal declined to grant back wages to the appellant except C Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the respondent as compensation towards back wages. This Award was passed by the Tribunal since the Management had failed to produce relevant documents to disclose the actual number of days for which appellant has worked and so his termination was held to be in D violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The respondent-Management of the BSNL, however, appealed against the Award passed by the Tribunal by way of a Writ Petition in the High Court before the Single Judge whereby the learned Single .Judge affirmed the Award passed E by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent- Management. The respondent was noi satisfied with the order passed by the Single Judge and refused to give effect to t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.