Supreme Court Upholds Decision on Temporary Worker Appeals, Increases Compensation

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to dismiss the appeals of temporary workers terminated after varying periods of service, emphasizing their lack of regular appointments to sanctioned posts. The Court modified the compensation awarded by the Single Judge, increasing it to Rs.50,000/- for appellants approaching for conciliation after 8 to 10 years and Rs.1,00,000/- for one who approached within 2 to 3 years from termination. The Court justified the dismissal based on the workers not being appointed through due selection processes on regular vacant posts, affirming the temporary nature of their employment.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against judgment quashing award by Labour Court. Appellants employed on daily wages terminated after years of service. Delay in approaching Labour Commissioner. Quashing of award by Single Judge upheld by Division Bench. Appellants seek reinstatement. Appellants not appointed on regular vacant posts. Compensation awarded by Single Judge. Dispute referred to Labour Court.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court quashing the award passed by the Labour Court. The appellants were employed on daily wages or temporary basis and were terminated after varying periods of service. The dispute arose when the Labour Court held the terminations as illegal and directed reinstatement of the appellants. The Single Judge quashed the award, citing gross delay in approaching the Labour Commissioner for conciliation. The Single Judge directed the Respondent Corporation to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each appellant due to the delay in approaching the conciliation officer.

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing that the appellants were temporary workers engaged on daily wages without regular appointments to vacant posts. Referring to the precedent set by the Constitution Bench in a previous case, the Division Bench concluded that the workers were not entitled to reinstatement since they were not appointed through due selection process on regular vacant posts. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, highlighting the unexplained delay in approaching the conciliation officer and the lack of continuous efforts by the appellants for reinstatement.

During the Supreme Court hearing, the appellant's counsel argued against the lower courts' decision, claiming continuous representations made to the Respondent Corporation. However, the Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the lower courts that the appellants were not appointed on a regular basis against sanctioned posts, justifying the dismissal of the appeals. The Supreme Court modified the compensation awarded by the Single Judge, increasing it to Rs.50,000/- for appellants who approached for conciliation after 8 to 10 years and Rs.1,00,000/- for an appellant who approached within 2 to 3 years from the date of termination.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the temporary nature of the appellants' employment and the lack of regular appointments to sanctioned posts. The modification of compensation was based on the varying periods of delay in approaching the conciliation officer, ensuring fair compensation for each appellant based on the timing of their approach.

---