TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of this Court in L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Another[(1982) 1 SCC 645], Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation[(2010) 3 SCC 192] and Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur[(2011) 6 SCC 584]. 3. On behalf of the appellant, Ms. Shobha, learned counsel, challenged the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent had worked for 240 days continuously in the year preceding the date of termination. Alternatively, she submitted that the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages in the facts of the case was unjustified as the respondent was only a daily wager; he worked for a very short period from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991 and for last more than 20 years he is not in the service due to interim orders. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni[ (2006) 9 SCC 434], Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and Another[(2008) 1 SCC 575], Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another[(2009) 15 SCC 327], Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others[(2010) 6 SCC 773] and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. The Workmen[(1971) 1 SCC 742], while dealing with the judicial discretion of the Labour Court or the Tribunal under ID Act in directing appropriate relief on setting aside the wrongful dismissal of a workman, stated in paragraph 5 (pgs. 746- 747) as follows: ".... The question whether on setting aside the wrongful dismissal of a workman he should be reinstated or directed to be paid compensation is a matter within the judicial discretion of the Labour Court or the Tribunal, dealing with the industrial dispute, the general rule in the absence of any special circumstances being of reinstatement. In exercising this discretion, fairplay towards the employee on the one hand and interest of the employer, including considerations of discipline in the establishment, on the other, require to be duly safeguarded. This is necessary in the interest both of security of tenure of the employee and of smooth and harmonious working of the establishment. Legitimate interests of both of them have to be kept in view if the order is expected to promote the desired objective of industrial peace and maximum possible production. The past record of the employer, the nature of the alleged conduct for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that Section 25-F of the ID Act is applicable to a daily-rated worker. We do not think that there is any dispute on this proposition. 12. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Others[(2005) 5 SCC 100], this Court in paragraph 54 (pg. 120) of the Report held as under: "54. Mr. Phadke, as noticed hereinbefore, has referred to a large number of decisions for demonstrating that this Court had directed reinstatement even if the workmen concerned were daily- wagers or were employed intermittently. No proposition of law was laid down in the aforementioned judgments. The said judgments of this Court, moreover, do not lay down any principle having universal application so that the Tribunals, or for that matter the High Court, or this Court, may feel compelled to direct reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Tribunal has some discretion in this matter. Grant of relief must depend on the fact situation obtaining in a particular case. The industrial adjudicator cannot be held to be bound to grant some relief only because it will be lawful to do so." 13. In Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal Corpn.) v. State of U.P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ges. Although we are of the opinion that the respondent was not entitled to any relief, whatsoever, we direct the appellant to pay him a sum of Rs. 25,000." 18. In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C.Joshi[(2007) 9 SCC 353], the Court was concerned with a daily wager who had worked with Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation from 01.08.1989 to 24.11.1991 and whose services were held to be terminated in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had directed the reinstatement of the workman with 50 per cent back wages from the date the industrial dispute was raised. Setting aside the order of reinstatement and back wages, this Court awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the workman keeping in view the nature and period of service rendered by the workman and the fact that industrial dispute was raised after six years. 19. In Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748] , this Court upheld the order of the Industrial Court passed in its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the ID Act awarding compensation and set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and the Division Bench that order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a situation of this nature. For the said purpose, certain relevant factors, as for example, nature of service, the mode and manner of recruitment viz. whether the appointment had been made in accordance with the statutory rules so far as a public sector undertaking is concerned, etc., should be taken into consideration." 23. In Jagbir Singh6 , this Court, speaking through one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) while dealing with the question of consequential relief arising from the facts quite similar to the present case, ordered compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the employer to the workman instead of reinstatement. In paragraph 14 (pg.335) of the Report, this Court held as under : "14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our Court. However, on close scrutiny of facts it transpires that that was a case where a workman was initially employed by Punjab State Warehousing Corporation as work-charge motor mate but after few months he was appointed as work munshi in the regular pay-scale for three months. His service was extended from time to time and later on by one month's notice given by the Managing Director of the Corporation his service was brought to end on 05.07.1988. The workman challenged the implementation of the notice in a writ petition and by an interim order the High Court stayed the implementation of that notice but later on the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to the workman to avail his remedy under the ID Act. After two months, the Managing Director of the Corporation issued notice dated 26.11.1992 for retrenchment of the workman along with few others by giving them one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice as per the requirement of Section 25-F(a) of the ID Act. On industrial dispute being raised, the Labour Court found that there was compliance of Section 25-F but it was found that the termination was violative of Section 25-G of the ID Act and, accordingly, Labour Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the High Court was found to be erroneous by this Court. This Court, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court and restored the award of the Labour Court. In Devinder Singh3 , the Court had not dealt with the question about the consequential relief to be granted to the workman whose termination was held to be illegal being in violation of Section 25-F. 29. In our view, Harjinder Singh2 and Devinder Singh3 do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of emplo....