The money value of the benefit of reinstatement awarded to a workman under the terms of an award is to be computed on the basis of all the circumstances of the case, including the terms and conditions of employment, the tenure of service, the possibility of termination of the employment at the instance of either party, the possibility of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement by the workman and even of the employer himself ceasing to exist or of the workman being awarded various benefits including reinstatement under the terms of future award by Industrial Tribunals in the event of industrial disputes arising between the parties in the future.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Computation of money value of benefit of reinstatement - Factors to be considered.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an employee of the respondent bank, was discharged from service in 1949. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in 1950, held that the discharge was illegal and directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant and pay him arrears of salary and allowances. The respondent appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, which upheld the direction of the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent failed to implement the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appellant applied to the Government of India for recovery of money under S. 20 (1) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. The Government advised the appellant to submit a revised application for computation of the money value of the benefit of reinstatement under S. 20 (2) of the Act. The appellant filed a petition under S. 20 (2) of the Act for computation of the money value of the benefit of reinstatement. The Industrial Tribunal computed the value of reinstatement at Rs. 1,000. The appellant appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal as incompetent. The appellant filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal erred in computing the money value of the benefit of reinstatement at Rs. 1,000. The Court held that the computation should have been made on the basis of all the circumstances of the case, including the terms and conditions of employment, the tenure of service, the possibility of termination of the employment at the instance of either party, the possibility of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement by the workman and even of the employer himself ceasing to exist or of the workman being awarded various benefits including reinstatement under the terms of future award by Industrial Tribunals in the event of industrial disputes arising between the parties in the future.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in computing the money value of the benefit of reinstatement at Rs. 1,000? 2. What factors should be considered in computing the money value of the benefit of reinstatement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Industrial Tribunal erred in computing the money value of the benefit of reinstatement at Rs. 1,000. The computation should have been made on the basis of all the circumstances of the case, including the terms and conditions of employment, the tenure of service, the possibility of termination of the employment at the instance of either party, the possibility of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement by the workman and even of the employer himself ceasing to exist or of the workman being awarded various benefits including reinstatement under the terms of future award by Industrial Tribunals in the event of industrial disputes arising between the parties in the future. 2. The factors to be considered in computing the money value of the benefit of reinstatement include: * The terms and conditions of employment * The tenure of service * The possibility of termination of the employment at the instance of either party * The possibility of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement by the workman * The possibility of the employer ceasing to exist * The possibility of the workman being awarded various benefits including reinstatement under the terms of future award by Industrial Tribunals in the event of industrial disputes arising between the parties in the future
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow as well as the award made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta and awarded that the appellant shall recover from the respondent the said sum of Rs. 12,500 (Rupees twelve thousand and five hundred only) being the computation of the money value of the benefit of reinstatement awarded to him under the terms of the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta dated December 5, 1960.

Judgment

Bhagwati, J. - This appeal with special leave is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, confirming, on appeal the award made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta in a dispute between the appellant and the respondent.

2. The appellant took up service with the respondent then known as the Bharat Bank Ltd., with effect from 1st July 1944, as an Inspector at Bombay in the grade of Rs. 170- 10- 200-20-400 and was given three increments when the first increment fell due as from 1st October 1945. He was also given promotions on 1st October 1946 and on 1st October 1947, and was drawing Rs. 240 per month plus a special allowance for a servant of Rs. 30 per month at the time when he was discharged by the respondent on 5th August 1949, on the plea that he had become surplus to the requirement of the respondent.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour had by Notification No. L. R. 2 (273) dated 21st February 1950, referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta the disputes pending between the various banks and their employees, and the appellant s case came up for hearing in the course of those proceedings before that Tribunal which held on 5th December 1050, that the order of discharge of the appellant was illegal and that the respondent should take him back in service as well as pay the appellant his arrears of salary and allowances from the date of discharge.

This direction was to be carried out within a month of the date of the publication of the award which was actually published in the Gazette of India (part II Section 3, page 1143) of 30th December 1950.

3. On 30th January 1951, the respondent preferred an appeal against the said order to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta sitting at Allahabad which by its decision dated 25th September 1951, upheld the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The respondent failed and neglected to implement the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed period in spite of the appellant s intimating to the respondent by his letter dated 10th October 1951, at its address at 37, Faiz Bazar, Delhi, that he was at Bombay and that he would like to know where he should report himself for duty.

By this letter he also claimed arrears of salary and allowances which had not till then been paid to him, apart from the payments made under the interim orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The respondent did not send any reply to the said letter with the result that the appellant served on the respondent a notice on 5th November 1951, through his solicitors intimating that the respondent had failed and neglected to reinstate the appellant in spite of his letter dated 10th October 1951, requesting it to do so.

The appellant further intimated to the respondent that by reason of its failure to reinstate him within the prescribed period the respondent had committed a breach of the directions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the appellant had therefore become entitled to compensation for the same.

The appellant therefore called upon the respondent to pay to him a sum of Rs. 32,388 as the amount of compensation to which he was entitled on account of the pay he would have earned till his 55th year, i.e., upto 4th May 1960, Provident Fund contribution on pay at 6 1/4 as allowed by the Rules of the Bank and gratuity for about 16 years from 1st July 1944, to 4th May 1960, at 1/2 month s pay per year of service, adjustment being made at 6 per annum for payment, if made as demanded.

This amount was exclusive of other claims against the respondent such as amounts due to him under the order dated 17th February 1951, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Allahabad, arrears of salary etc., withheld by the respondent.

As the respondent failed and neglected to send any reply to the said notice or to comply with the requisitions therein contained, the appellant mad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document