2010 Supreme(SC) 226

2010 (2) Supreme 318
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
Krishan Singh — Appellant
versus
Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana) — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2335 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11487 of 2009)
Decided on : 12-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
While exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, the High Courts are duty bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV of the Constitution including Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43A thereof.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 25F-Termination of services of appellant a daily wager-On reference, Award passed by Labour Court holding that appellant had admittedly completed 267 days and his services were terminated without any notice or notice pay and without payment of retrenchment compensation and termination was, therefore, in violation of Section 25F of the Act and appellant was entitled to be re-instated in his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from date of demand notice-Writ Petition thereagainst-Allowed by High Court setting aside Award of Labour Court directing respondent instead to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to appellant –Appeal-Held in the instant case, respondent had not taken any stand before Labour Court in his objections that the post in which workman was working was not sanctioned or that his engagement was contrary to statutory rules or that he was employed elsewhere or that there was no vacancy- In the absence of any pleadings, evidence or findings on any of these aspects, High Court should not have modified Award of Labour Court directing re-instatement of appellant with 50% back wages and instead directed payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to appellant-Impugned judgment of High Court set aside- Direction given that appellant be re-instated as a daily wager with 50% backwages-Appeal allowed. (Paras 11 to 13)

        Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 11A –Scope and ambit of-Section 11A of the Act clearly provides that where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require- Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct re-instatement of a workman with 50% back wages taking into consideration pleadings of parties and evidence on record, High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the same, except on well- settled principles laid down by this Court for a writ of certiorari against an order passed by a Court or a Tribunal. (Para 8)

       Facts of the Case :

        Services of appellant a daily wager was terminated herein in the instant case. On reference, Award was passed by Labour Court holding that appellant had admittedly completed 267 days and his services were terminated without any notice or notice pay and without payment of retrenchment compensation and termination was, therefore, in violation of Section 25F of the Act and appellant was entitled to be re-instated in his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from date of demand notice.Writ Petition thereagainst was Allowed by High Court setting aside Award of Labour Court directing respondent instead to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to appellant.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        In the instant case, respondent had not taken any stand before Labour Court in his objections that the post in which workman was working was not sanctioned or that his engagement was contrary to statutory rules or that he was employed elsewhere or that there was no vacancy. In the absence of any pleadings, evidence or findings on any of these aspects, High Court should not have modified Award of Labour Court directing re-instatement of appellant with 50% back wages and instead directed payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to appellant.Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside. Direction was given that appellant be re-instated as a daily wager with 50% backwages. Appeal allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.