UTTARANCHAL FOREST HOSPITAL TRUST versus DINESH KUMAR

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 27-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

} 
/ 
UTT ARANCHAL FOREST HOSPITAL TRUST 
A 
v. 
DINESH KUMAR 
NOVEMBER 27, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFT AB ALAM, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Re-instatement-Claimed on the ground that the claimant C 
worked as sweeper in the hospital of appellant for more .than one 
year-Allowed by Labour Court holding that he rendered more than 
240 days of service in year preceding the alleged termination,-
Reinstatement directed with 50% backwages-Order upheld by High 
Court-Justification of-Held: Not justified-Documents filed clearly D 
show that the worker was engaged on part-time basis for one hour or 
few hours and not engaged as daily wager on regular basis and belie 
his claim that he worked for more than 240 days-UP. Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947-s.6N. 
Respondent raised industrial dispute claiming that he worked as E 
a sweeper in the hospital of appellant from 1-7-1995 to 16-8-1996 and 
that he was terminated on 17-8-1996 without notice and retrenchment 
allowance. The Labour Court held that the respondent had rendered 
more than 240 days of service in the year preceding the alleged F 
termination, and directed his reinstatement with 50% backwages. The 
order was upheld by High Court. 
In the instant appeal by employer, the appellant challenged the 
order of the High Court on the ground that the respondent was only 
working on part time basis, therefore, the question of he having worked G 
,. 
for more than 240 days in the year preceding the alleged termination 
did not arise. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
573 
H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The basic difference between a person who is engaged 
on a part-time basis for one hour or few hours and one who is engaged 
as a daily wager on regular basis has not been kept in view either by 
the Labour Court or by the High Court. Materials were placed before 
the Labour Court to show that the workman was engaged for doing a 
B part-time job and that he had worked for a few days in several months; 
and that he was paid Rs.35/- when he worked for full day and Rs.5/-
when he worked for one hour. The documents filed clearly establish that 
the claim of respondent of having worked for more than 240 days is 
belied. [Paras 6 and 7) (576-A, B, C; 575-F] 
c 
1.2. The stand of the appellant, that the respondent was called for 
workwheneverwork was available, and as and when required and that 
he was not called for doing any work when the same was not available, 
bas been established. The Labour Court itself noted thattheworkman 
D was engaged in work by others also as he was working in the appellants' 
establishment for one hour or little more on some days. In this view of 
the matter, inevitably the Labour Court and the High Court were not 
justified in directing reinstatement with partial back wages. 
[Paras 8 and 9) (576-C, D, E] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5423 of 
2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.9.2005 of the High Court 
ofUttaranchal at Nainital in W.P. No. 530/2004 (MIS). 
F 
Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appellant. 
G 
Ashutosh Bhattacharya, Girdhar G. Upadhyay, Vinita G. Upadhyay, 
Asha Upadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of Uttaranchal High Court. Appellant had questioned the 
correctness of the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 
H 
UTT ARANCHAL FOREST HOSPITAL TRUST v. DINESH 575 
KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.] 
Haldwani, Nainital (in short the 'Labour Court') in the writ petition. 
A 
3. The Claim of the respondent was that he was working as a 
sweeper in the hospital of the appellant and was appointed on 1. 7 .1995 
and worked up to 16.8.1996. But his services were terminated on 
17 .8.1996 without any notice and without any retrenchment allowances. B 
A dispute was raised which was referred to the Labour Court for 
adjudication under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
(in short 'the Act'). The Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled 
to the benefit of reinstatement and 50% of back wages. The stand of the 
appellant that the respondent was engaged on a daily wage basis for doing C 
a part time job of sweeping was held to be not acceptable. It was held 
that the respondent had rendered more than 240 days of service. Before 
the High Court, the stand of the appellant was that the respondent did

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