THE MANAGER (FACTORY) MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. &ANR. versus SURESH S/O DADARAO GADGE

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 17-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 479 
THE MANAGER (FACTORY) MAHARASHTRA STATE 
A 
COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. &ANR. 
v. 
SURESH S/O DADARAO GADGE 
(Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2015) 
DECEMBER 17, 2014 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law -
Termination - Of respondent-peon __ 
Respondent not given any retrenchment compensation - c 
Subsequent re-instatement of respondent by Labour"court 
but without back-wages - Challenge to - Held: Appointment 
of respondent was irregular - He had hardly worked for about 
a year and a half on daily wage basis - Unit of appellant, 
where respondent was employed, had been closed down -
D 
Further; responden( did not lead any evidence or file any 
affidavit before the Labour Court stating that he was 
unemployed during the period of litigation -
In the 
circumstances, respondent ought not to have been reinstated 
in service - However; two lakh rupees awarded to respondent E 
by way of compensation - In addition, Rs. 25, 0001- deposited 
by appellant with the Supreme Court Registry permitted to 
be withdrawn by the respondent. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 27 
of2015. 
' 
F 
Fram the Judgment and Order dated 27-03-2014 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 8809 
of 2012. 
Vinay Navare, Satyajeet Kumar, Keshav Ranjan, 
Ms. Gwen K.B. (For Ms. Abha R. Sharma), Advs. for the G 
Appellant$. 
DilipAnnasaheb Taur, Amol V. Deshmukh, Advs. for the 
. Respondents. 
479 
H 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1 .Leave granted. 
2. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides have 
requested for quick disposal of the appeal and we are also of 
8 
the view that earlier disposal Cif the appeal would be in the 
interest of justice as well as the parties to the litigation. In the 
circumstances, the appeal is heard and decided today. 
3. ·The 'respo'ndent had been app'ointed as a· peon on 
daily wage basis on 1st July, 1994 and was discontinued from 
c setvLcefrom 4th March, 1996, without making any payment of · 
retrenchment compensation. 
4. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had not been 
engaged to work by following the normal practice and thus he 
was engaged by way of "back door entr}i". 
D 
5. ,The respondent had challenged his termination by 
approaching the Labour Court, Nanded (Maharashtra). The 
Labour Court, by its Award dated 29th December, 2010, in 
Comp. ULP/No.2/1996, decided in favour of the respondent, 
whereby it was directed that he should be reinstated in service 
E with continuity of service from 4th March, 1996, but without back 
wages. 
F 
6. The said Award has been affirmed by the learned 
Single Judge of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 
27th March, 2014, passed in Writ Petition No.8809 of 2012. 
. 
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High 
C_ourt affirming the Award passed by the Labour Court, the 
appellant-employer has approached this Court. 
8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are 
· G of the view that the respondent ought not to have been 
reinstated in service as he was not in a regular service. In fact, 
no other person junior to the respondent had been continued 
at Parbhani unit of the appellant, which had been closed down. 
In fact, the.re was no work at Parbhani unit, as the said unit had 
H been closed down, the respondent, who was working on daily 
THE MANAGER (FACTORY) MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. MKTG. 
481 
FED. LTD. v. SURESH S/O DADARAO GADGE [ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
wage basis, was not continued on qaily wage basis, but it is 
A 
an admitted fact that he was not given retrenchment 
compensation. 
9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, 
it would be just and appropriate not to reinstate the respondent, 
especially, in view of the fact that (i) the respondent had hardly B 
worked for a period of about a year and a half on daily wage 
basis; (ii) his appointment was irregular and; (iii) Parbhani unit 
of the appellant, where the respondent was employed, has now 
been closed down. 
10. Looking at the peculiarfacts of the case, it would be C 
just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees two 
lakhs only) by way of compensation to the respondent, It is 
pertinent to note that he did not lead any evidence or file any 
affidavit before the Labour Court stating that he was 
unemployed during the period of litigation. The aforestated D 
amount of Rs.2 lakhs by way of compe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.