LexU.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus LAXMI KANT GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,•;A [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1051 U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD A \I. LAXMI KANT GUPTA (Civil Appeal No.5863 of 2008) 4 ... SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 B [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] ·UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.6N - Illegal termi- nation of service - Relief - Scope of - Held: No hard and fast principle that on termination being found to be illega1, relief of c re-instatement with back wages is to .be granted- Compensa- tion can be awarded instead, at the discretion ofthe Labour Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. · TtJe Labour Court directed re-instatement of Respon- -~ dent on the ground. that his service was terminated with- D out complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent was how- ever denied back wages inasmuch as he had challenged his termination after inordinate delay of about 10 years. ·Appellant filed writ petition. The order of re-instatement E was upheld by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. While the earlier view of the Court was that · -~ if an order of termination was found to be illegal, normally F the relief to be granted should be re-instatement with full back wages. However, with the passage of time it came to be realized that an industry should not be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which he ap- parently contributed little or nothing at all. The changes G brought out by the subsequent decisions of this Court, --+ probably having regard to the changes in the policy-de- cisions of the government in the wake of prevailing mar- ket economy, globalization, privatization and outsourcing 1051 H 1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A was evident. There is no hard and fast principle now that on the termination of service being found to be illegal, the normal rule is re-instatement with back wages. Compen- sation can be awarded instead, at the discretion of the Labour Court, depending on the facts and circumstances B of the case. [Paras 9, 11] [1054,D-E; 1054,F-G; 1055,B] c U. P State Brassware Corporation Ltd. & another v. Uday Narain Pandey JT (2005) 10 SC 344 and Haryana State Elec- tronics Development Corporation v. Mamni AiR (2006) SC 2427 - relied on. 2.1. In the present case, Respondent has already re- ceived more than Rs. 7 lakhs. This has happened because although the Labour Court in its award dated 14.11.1996 only granted re-instatement without back wages, subse- quently, as a result of the interim order of the High Court D in the writ petition filed before it, the workman was granted his salary instead of re-instatement as an interim measure. Consequently, as a result of that interim order he has re- ceived more than Rs. 7 lakhs. Coupled with the fact that the respondent worked for only 2 years (1984-86) as .a E purely temporary employee and the fact that he raised the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer only after 10 years of his termination of service, the respon- dent has already got more than sufficient compensation. [Para 12] [1055 C-E] F 2.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, com- pensation should have been granted instead of re-instate- ment. The amount already paid to the respondent is more than sufficient compensation for his illegal termination of service, and no further amount need to be paid to him. G However, what has already been paid to him should not be recovered from him. [Para 13] [1055 F-G] Case Lal!Y Reference JT (2005) 10 SC 344 relied on Para 9 H U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. LAXMI KANT GUPTA AIR (2006) SC 2427 relied on Para 10 1053 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5863 of 2008 From the final judgment and Order dated 20.3.2006 of A • ,. the High Court of Judicature atAllah.abad in Civil Misc. Writ B Petition No. 11078 of 1997 ' i Ahanthem Henry and Raj iv Mehta for the Appellant. Dr. J.N. Dubey, Anurag Dubey, Anu Sawhney, Meenesh Dubey, S.K. Diwakar and S.R. Setia for the Respondent. c MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judg- ment and order dated 20.3.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11078 of 1997 of the Allahabad High Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. D 4. The writ petition in the High Court was filed against the award of the Labour Court IV, Kanpur dated 14.11.1996 (an- E nexure P/4 to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.