THE TELEPHONE DISTRICT MANAGER & ORS. versus KESHAB DEB

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 06-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

' ., 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 835 
THE TELEPHONE DISTRICT MANAGER & ORS. 
A 
v. 
KESHAB DEB 
(Civil Appeal No. 3324 of 2008) 
MAY 6, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Casual labour - Termination - Right of election in the 
matter of choice of forum -- Where an employee maintains a C 
writ petition not only on the ground of violation of equality 
clause enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution but also on 
ground of violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947, he has an option to choose his own forum- Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Art. 14. 
Termination of casual worker - Grant of compensation -
Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the termination al 
Respondent-workman was illegal - Correctness of - Held: On 
facts, correct - However, automatic direction for reinstatement 
of Respondent with full back wages was not contemplated -
Even if provisions of s.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had 
not been complied with, Respondent-workman was only 
entitled to be paid a just compensation - In peculiar facts and 
circumstances of the case, Respondent directed to be paid 
compensation of Rs.1,50,0001-. 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - s.28 - Held: Does 
not bar the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal 
- It saves the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. 
Respondent had been appointed as a casual labour 
on daily wages. He was terminated from service pursuant 
to an alleged misconduct on his part. He filed writ petition 
before the High Court contending that his services were 
terminated without meeting the statutory requirements as 
835 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
A contained in s.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
He furthermore alleged arbitrariness on the part of the 
appellants in passing the said order of termination and 
prayed for regularization of his services in terms of a 
scheme known as the Casual Labours (Grant of 
B Temporary Status in Regularization) Scheme. A Single 
Judge of the High Court transferred the petition to the 
Central Administrative Tribunal, holding that in view of the 
provision contained under s.14 of the Administrative 
Tribunals Act, 1985 the writ petition was not maintainable. 
C Before the Administrat;ve Tribunal, the appellants in their 
written statement inter alia raised a contention that the 
respondent being a casual employee was not entitled to 
the benefit of the saiC: Scheme. It was furthermore stated 
that the Respondent's attitude, behaviour and conduct 
as a casual labour was not at all satisfactory. The 
D Administrative Tribunal, however held that the order of 
termination passed by the appellant was illegal. Direction 
was accordingly given for re-instatement of Respondent 
with back wages along with all the service benefits 
including the benefit of regularization of service. The 
E judgment passed by the Tribunal was upheld by the High 
Court by reason of the impugned judgment. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf 
of the appellants that the claim of Respondent being 
based on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
F the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain 
the matter; that Respondent having not claimed any back 
wages in the writ petition, he was not entitled thereto; that 
he having been appointed only as casual labour on a daily 
rated basis, the scheme for regularization was not 
G applicable; that he having no right to continue in the 
service, the impugned judgment is wholly erroneous and 
the High Court committed a serious error in upholding 
the order of the Administrative Tribunal and further that 
having regard to s.28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 
H 1985 the only remedy of the respondent was to file an 
.... J 
I A 
.. 
1' 
THE TELEPHONE DISTRICT MANAGER & ORS. v. 
837 
KESHAB DEB 
' 
appropriate application before an Industrial Court. 
A 
Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the 
Appellants themselves having contended that the Central 
Administrative Tribunal had the requisite jurisdiction, 
cannot now turn around and contend that it did not have 
any jurisdiction; that Respondent being a government 8 
servant, the Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of 
.s.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had the 
requisite jurisdiction to entertain the application and that 
the order of termination having been issued arbitrarily, the 
impugned judgment is unassailable. 
C 
Disposi

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