Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages in Labour Dispute Case

The Labour Court found the termination of appellants' services, except for three workers, violated S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, deeming it invalid. While the Labour Court awarded compensation, the Supreme Court directed reinstatement with full back wages, stating non-compliance with S. 25F typically warrants reinstatement unless exceptional circumstances exist. Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala were deemed in continuous service under S. 25B(2). All appeals were allowed for reinstatement with full back wages, with no seniority accrual during the period between retrenchment and reinstatement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the termination of services of the appellants was in violation of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or only compensation.
3. Whether Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala can be regarded as being in continuous service for a period of one year within the meaning of S. 25B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Summary:

1. Violation of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The Labour Court found that the termination of the services of the appellants, except for three workmen (S. C. Goyal, Usha Kumari, and Madhu Bala), was in violation of the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore invalid and inoperative. The appellants claimed the same relief as in Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, where the termination was deemed retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo) and required compliance with S. 25F.

2. Relief of Reinstatement vs. Compensation:
The Labour Court directed payment of compensation instead of reinstatement with full back wages, reasoning that reinstatement would equate the appellants with workmen who had passed the test for permanent absorption. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that non-compliance with S. 25F ordinarily leads to reinstatement with full back wages unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court found no special impediment in awarding reinstatement with full back wages in the present cases, as there was no evidence of undue burden on the employer or dissatisfaction among other employees.

3. Continuous Service for Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala:
The Labour Court treated Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala differently, as they had not been in employment for one year despite working more than 240 days. The Supreme Court clarified that S. 25B(2) deems a workman to be in continuous service for one year if they have worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months, regardless of being employed for a full year. Thus, Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala were entitled to the same relief as other appellants.

Conclusion:
All appeals were allowed, directing reinstatement with full back wages. The salary on reinstatement would be the salary drawn at retrenchment, subject to any revisions, and the period from retrenchment to reinstatement would not count towards seniority. The respondent could manage temporary employees according to the law. There was no order regarding costs.

Separate Judgment:
Pathak, J. concurred with the order proposed by Chinnappa Reddy, emphasizing that the ordinary rule of reinstatement with full back wages applies unless specific facts justify a different relief. He agreed that the amendments to the Industrial Disputes Act by Act No. 36 of 1964 made it sufficient for a workman to have worked 240 days in the preceding twelve months to qualify under S. 25B(2).

---