U.P.S.R.T.C. LTD. versus SARADA PRASAD MISRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
U.P.S.R.T.C. LTD. 
A 
v. 
SARADA PRASAD MISRA AND ANR. 
APRIL 13, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
·s 
Labour Laws: 
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Section 2-A-Reinstatement Jn _service-Back wages-Award of-
Workman was appointed as a conductor with .the Corporation on purely 
temporary basis-Even thereafter, iie was appointed from time I~ time. on 
temporwy basis as and when the Corporation was (n need of his services-
c 
. Finally, the workman was appointed as a conductor on purely ad-hoc basis D 
temporarily for a period of one momh-/t was expressly st11ted in the order 
of appointment that his services would be terminated at any time without 
. prior notice-Since the services.of the workman were.no longer required, his 
services were terminated-The labour Court held that since the workman 
had not been paid retrenchment compensation, the action of the Corporation 
was illegal-The labour Court further held that the workman was entitled E 
to reinstatement with fi1ll back wages froni the date of his termination till the 
date of his reinstatement-The High Court upheld the said award-
Correctness of-Held: No precise formula can be adopted nor 'castiron rule' 
can be laid down as to when payment of full back wages should be allowed 
by the Court or Tribunal-It depends upon the facts and circumstances of F 
each case-The question regarding payment" of back wages Would be 
independent of the question as to entitlement of reinswtement-/n the instant 
case, workman is allowed back wages to the extent of 50% from the date of 
the award till he was reinstated in service. 
The first respondent-workman was appointed as a conductor with the . G 
appellant-Corporation on purely temporary basis. According to the appellant, 
even thereafter, he was appointed from tiine to time on temporary basis as 
and when the appel!ant was iii need of his services. Finally, the first respondent 
was appointed as a conductor on purely ad-hoc basis temporarily for a period 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A of one month. It was expressly stated in the order of appointment that his 
services would be terminated at any time without prior notice. Since the 
services of the first respondent were no longer needed, in accordance with 
the terms and conditions of the order of the appointment, the services of the 
first respondent were terminated. 
B 
After about seven years from the date of termination, the first respondent 
filed an application under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 before the Conciliation Officer making grievance against the action of 
termination of his services by the appellant-Corporation. The appellant-
Corporation raised a preliminary objection that the application filed by the 
C first respondent was belated and deserved to be dismissed on the ground of 
delay and laches. The Conciliation Officer condoned the delay and submitted 
a 'failure report'. Pursuant to the 'failure report' by the Conciliation Officer, 
the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court. 
The Labour Court held that the first respondent was appointed in 1973 
D and since he had completed 240 days of continuous service his services could 
not have been terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 
The Labour Court held that since the first respondent had not been paid 
retrenchment compensation, the action of the Corporation was illegal. The 
Labour Court further held that the first respondent was entitled to 
E reinstatement with full back wages. 
F 
Being aggrieved the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High 
Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed reinstatement 
of the first respondent with 50% back wages from the date of his termination 
till the date of his reinstatement. Hence the appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. No precise formula can be adopted nor 'cast iron rule' can be 
laid down as to when payment of full back wages should be allowed by the 
Court or Tribunal. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 
G The approach of the Court!fribunal should not be rigid or mechanical but 
flexible and realistic. The Court or Tribunal dealing with cases of industrial 
disputes may find force in the contention of the employee as to illegal 
termination of his services and may come to the conclusion that the action 
has been taken otherwise than in accordance with law. In such c-.ises obvious

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