U.P. STATE BRASSWARE CORPN. LTD. AND ANR. versus UDAI NARAIN PANDEY

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 08-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

U.P. STATE BRASSWARE CORPN. LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UDAI NARAIN PANDEY 
DECEMBER 8, 2005 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law: 
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
c 
Section 6-N-Retrenchment of workman-Reinstatement of-Award of 
back wages-Principles-Workman appointed on daily wages for a fixed 
tenure-Services of the said workman terminated on expiry of his tenure-
Industrial undertaking closed down-Labour Court directed reinstatement 
with back wages since the workmen rendered240 days of continuous service D 
during the previous year-High Court affirmed the decision-Correctness 
of-Held: No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances 
payment of entire back wages should be allowe~Indisputably, it depends 
upon the facts and circumstances of each case-However, back wages should 
not be granted mechanically-On facts, back wages confined to 25% of the 
total back wages from the date of termination till the closure of the industrial E 
undertaking-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S. 25F. 
The respondent-workman was appointed as a daily wager in the 
appellant-Corporation for a fixed tenure. The services of the respondent were 
terminated on the expiry of his tenure. The Labour Court directed 
reinstatement of the respondent with back wages holding that the termination F 
was illegal being in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 since the respondent had rendered 240 days of continuous service 
during the previous year. The High Court confirmed the decision. Hence the 
appeal 
On behalf of the appellant, it as contended that the appellant-Corporation 
was closed down on 26.3.1993 and, therefore, the Labour Court as well as the 
High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment 
The following question arose before the Court :-
609 
G 
H 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Whether direction to pay back wages upon a declaration that a workman 
has been retrenched in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was correct? 
Allowing the appeal in part, of Court 
B 
HELD: 1. No precise formula can be laid down as to under what 
circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. Indisputably, 
it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, 
not be correct to contend that it is automatic. It should not be granted 
mechanically only because on technical grounds or otherwise an order of 
C termination is found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of 
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [6!6-F) 
2. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was principally established for the 
purpose of preempting industrial tensions, providing the mechanics of dispute-
resolutions and setting up the necessary infrastructure so that the energies 
D of partners in production may not be dissipated in counter-productive battles 
and assurance of industrial justice may create a climate of goodwill. (622-Dl 
L/Cv. D.J. Bahadur, (1981) 1SCC315, relied on. 
Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Ltd v. Om Prakash Upadhyay, 
E (2002) 10 sec 89, Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan 
Tin Works Pvt. Ltd, [1979) 1 SCR 563, Management of Panitole Tea Estate 
v. The Workmen, (1971) 3 SCR 774, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central 
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, ( 1981) 1 SCR 
789, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 1 SCC 671, J.N. 
Srivastavav. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 559, MD. UP. WarehousingCorpn. 
F v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, (1980) 3 sec 459, Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Shri 
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd, (1984) 3 SCR 223 and P.G.l of Medical 
education and REsearch v. Raj Kumar, (2001) 2 sec 54, referred to. 
3.1. Industrial Courts while adjudicating on disputes betwe~n the 
management and the workmen must take such decisions which would be in 
G consonance with the purpose the law seeks to achieve. When justice is the 
buzzword in the matter of adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, it 
would be wholly improper on the part of the superior courts to make them 
apply the cold letter to the statutes to act mechanically. Rendition of justice 
would bring within its purview giving a person what is due to him and not 
H what cane be given to him in law. (622-E, F) 
, 
., 
. 
' 
r'l 
.. 
' 
-.Y.-
... 
.. 
U.P. STATEBRASSWARECORPN. LTD. v. UDAINARAIN PANDEY 
611 
3.2. A person is not entitled to get something only b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.