2023 (8) TMI 984 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Decision on Worker Retrenchment, Orders Reinstatement and Back Wages

The Supreme Court dismissed the management's appeal regarding the retrenchment of 21 casual workers by FCI, upholding the Tribunal's decision for ... Retrenchment without notice or compensation - reinstatement and payment of back wages - regularization of casual workers - entitlement under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - voluntary implementation of an award and consequent estoppel - doctrine of approbate and reprobate - change of position and laches in challenging complianceReinstatement and payment of back wages - procedural limitation on grounds of appeal - Whether the management of FCI could press in this Court the challenge to the Tribunal's directions for reinstatement and payment of 75% back wages when it had not assailed that part of the Award before the Division Bench. - HELD THAT: - The Division Bench recorded that the management did not assail the Award insofar as it directed reinstatement and payment of 75% back wages (para 12). Having expressly confined its grounds before the Division Bench to the question of regularization, the management cannot now raise those unpressed objections before this Court. On that short ground the appeal filed by the management was dismissed (para 9). [Paras 9, 12]Management's appeal in respect of reinstatement and 75% back wages dismissed as those grounds were not assailed before the Division Bench.Regularization of casual workers - entitlement under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - voluntary implementation of an award and consequent estoppel - doctrine of approbate and reprobate - change of position and laches in challenging compliance - Whether the Tribunal's direction to reinstate and regularize the casual workmen should be sustained in view of the management's implementation of the Award and subsequent absorption of the workmen in service. - HELD THAT: - Although the Tribunal's and the learned Judge's findings on entitlement under Section 25F support reinstatement, the decisive legal question was whether the management could now repudiate regularization after it voluntarily implemented the Award and absorbed the workmen. The management had conditional interim protection in the writ petition but chose to reinstate and then issue a corrigendum treating the workmen as 'absorbed' (Office Order and Corrigendum dated November 2000) and thereafter allowed the position to prevail for about 18 years (paras 11-13). This conduct invoked the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate; having accepted and benefitted from the Award and permitted the workmen to alter their position, the management is estopped from taking a contrary stand. The learned Judge correctly declined to disturb the Award in view of the long acquiescence and hardship that would result from upsetting the status quo; the Division Bench's contrary correction of regularization overlooked these facts (paras 14-16). Consequently, the Court restored the Award and the learned Judge's order upholding it (para 17). [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]The Award directing reinstatement and regularization is restored; the management is estopped from denying regularization having voluntarily implemented and benefited from the Award over a prolonged period.Final Conclusion: The appeal on behalf of the workmen is allowed and the Division Bench judgment dated 17.12.2020 is set aside; the learned Judge's order and the Tribunal Award dated 18.03.1997 are restored (subject to prior observations in Contempt Petition), while the management's appeal is dismissed; parties to bear their own costs. Issues Involved:1. Legality of retrenchment of 21 casual workers by Food Corporation of India (FCI).2. Entitlement of the workmen to reinstatement and back wages.3. Regularization of the services of the workmen.Summary:1. Legality of Retrenchment:The Tribunal found that the 21 workmen were engaged as casual workers by FCI at Patna and their retrenchment was void as they were neither given notice nor paid compensation, violating Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal directed reinstatement and regularization in Class-IV posts with 75% back wages from the date of retrenchment (10.05.1990).2. Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Wages:The Jharkhand High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the workmen had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months and were terminated without complying with mandatory provisions. The High Court noted that the management did not distinguish these workmen from others who had been regularized. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Award in its entirety.3. Regularization of Services:The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court modified the order by quashing the Award's direction for regularization, stating that such relief could not be sustained as there was no term of regularization in the reference of the industrial dispute. However, the direction to pay 75% of back wages remained untouched.Supreme Court's Decision:The Supreme Court noted that the management of FCI did not contest the reinstatement and payment of back wages before the Division Bench. The management's appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it had voluntarily implemented the Award, including the absorption of workmen in regular service, and allowed the situation to continue for 18 years. The appeal by the Executive Staff Union of FCI was allowed, restoring the order of the learned Judge and the Award of the Tribunal. The Division Bench's judgment was set aside, and the appeal by the management of FCI was dismissed. Pending I.A.s were closed, and parties were to bear their own costs.