TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court sets aside reinstatement order, directs compensation. Emphasizes adherence to legal provisions.</h1> The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the reinstatement order and directing the Appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000 per ... There cannot be any dispute that provisions of Section 6- N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. We are, however, of the opinion that instead and in place of issuing a direction for reinstatement of service, interests of justice shall be sub- served if compensation of Rs.30,000/- per person is directed to be paid. It goes without saying that the Respondents would be entitled to wages and other remunerations in terms of the interim order passed by the High Court so long they have actually worked. We, furthermore, hope and trust that in all future appointments, the Appellant shall strictly follow the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the Respondents' appointments.2. Validity of the termination of the Respondents' services.3. Compliance with the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.4. Entitlement to relief and reinstatement.5. Application of constitutional provisions and statutory recruitment rules.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Respondents' Appointments:The Appellant, a Municipal Corporation constituted under the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, was required to follow the procedures laid down in the Adhiniyam and the rules framed thereunder for recruitment. However, the Respondents were appointed as apprentices by the Administrator of the Municipality without adhering to these statutory requirements. The appointments were made before the creation of the temporary posts by the State, thus violating the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Apprentice Act, 1961.2. Validity of the Termination of the Respondents' Services:The Respondents' services were terminated with effect from 31.12.1986. They challenged the termination before the Conciliation Officer, leading to a reference to the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the Respondents had worked for more than 240 days and ruled that their termination violated Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, declaring the termination illegal and directing reinstatement.3. Compliance with the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act:The Labour Court's award was based on the finding that the Respondents' termination did not comply with Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the workmen had completed 240 days of continuous service, thus entitling them to relief for the violation of Section 6-N.4. Entitlement to Relief and Reinstatement:The High Court dismissed the Appellant's writ petition, reasoning that the workmen had been reinstated pursuant to an interim order and that it would not be appropriate to displace them. The Supreme Court, however, held that non-compliance with Section 6-N does not automatically warrant reinstatement. The Labour Court failed to consider relevant facts and the nature of the appointments, which were made in violation of the Adhiniyam. The Supreme Court concluded that reinstatement was not appropriate and directed compensation instead.5. Application of Constitutional Provisions and Statutory Recruitment Rules:The Supreme Court criticized the practice of making appointments without following constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 16 and statutory recruitment rules. It referenced the Constitution Bench decision in *Secy., State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors.*, which deemed such appointments illegal. The Court emphasized that public servants must adhere to statutory provisions and that appointments made in violation thereof are void.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the reinstatement order and directing the Appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000 per person to the Respondents. The Court underscored the necessity for future appointments to strictly follow the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules, ensuring compliance with legal and constitutional mandates.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
