Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
B.S.N.L.
Versus
Bhurumal
Civil Appeal No. 10957 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14572 of 2012
Decided On : 11-12-2013
Service law-Termination from services -Principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when thetermination is found to be illegal -Applicability of-Ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when thetermination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases-When it comes to thecase of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination isfound illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic andinstead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice-Instantly respondent was working as a daily wager-Termination took place more than 11 years ago- No doubt, as per therespondent he had worked for 15 years- However, nodirect evidence for working 15 years had been furnished by respondent-Hence held that ends of justicewould be met by granting compensation of Rs. 3 lakhsin lieu of reinstatement -Appeal disposed of (Paras 23 to 26)
Facts of the Case :
A. The respondent herein raised an industrial dispute alleging his wrongful termination. He claimed that he was working as a Lineman ondaily wages with the Sonipat Telephone Department, BSNL at Saidpur Exchangeand was not paid his wages for the period from October 2001 till April2002. He further stated that while working he got an electrical shock andbecause of this accident he was hospitalized. However, he was not allowedto resume his duty which amounted to wrongful termination.
B. CGIT held that respondent was working as a Lineman and his services were illegally terminated and directed reinstatement of respondent along with back wages.The appellant preferred Writ Petition against said award.This Writ Petition was dismissedby Single Judge vide holding the sameas bereft of any merit.Even the intra court appeal filed by the appellant i.e. LettersPatent Appeal (LPA) was dismissed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt.
C. Present appeal has been preferred against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
A.The Supreme Court held that there wasno perversity in the finding of CGIT, as upheld by High Court, that respondent had worked with the appellant on daily wage basis. When the respondent suffered the electric shock, officers of the appellant came to the spot of occurrence and ensured his medical treatment. This would not have happened if the respondent was not in the employment of the appellant. Stand of appellant was that of complete denial, namely that respondent never worked with the appellant at all. Once, that stand is proved to be false, there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the CGIT. The termination was, thus, rightly held to be illegal.
B.Instantly respondent was working as a daily wager. Termination took place more than 11 years ago.No doubt, as per the respondent he had worked for 15 years.However, no direct evidence for working 15 years had been furnished by respondent.Hence held that ends of justice would be met by granting compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement .Appeal was disposed of.
Result : Appeal disposed of
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. For deciding this appeal, the seminal facts, which are required a mention are recapitulated below:
3. The respondent herein raised an industrial dispute alleging his wrongful termination, by approaching the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Faridabad in the year 2000. He claimed that he was working as a Lineman on daily wages with the Sonipat Telephone Department, BSNL at Saidpur Exchange and was not paid his wages for the period from October 2001 till April 2002. He further stated that while working he got an electrical shock and because of this accident he was hospitalized. However, he was not allowed to resume his duty which amounted to wrongful termination. Conciliation Proceedings commenced after notice was sent to the appellant. Defence of the appellant was that the respondent never worked with the appellant. It was pleaded that there was an agreement dated 18.1.2002 entered into between appellant and M/s. Haryana Securities/Services (Regd) for supply of securities personnel to SSA, Sonipat. The appellant stated that the respondent may have worked as a contract employee with the said contractor and deployed at the establishment of the appellant in that capacity. The conciliation proceedings were not successful, the Conciliation Officer sent his failure report to the Central Government and on that basis Central Government made a reference to the Central Government Industrial Disputes-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), Chandigarh, with the following terms of reference.
“Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Sonipat in terminating the services of Sh. Bhurumal worker w.e.f. Arpil 2002 is just and legal? If not what relief he is entitled to?
4. In the claim statement filed by the respondent before the CGIT, the respondent stated that he had been working as a Lineman with the appellant from 1.7.1987 and worked in that capacity till 27th April 2002 on daily wages basis. He also stated that on 17.11.2001, while repairing the fault of a telephone, he suffered electric shock and due to this accident, he sustained injuries. He was admitted in a hospital. He was not paid his salary from August 2001 to April 2002. His services were illegally terminated with effect from 28TH April, 2002. In the written statement filed by the appellant, appellant took up the same stand which it had taken in the conciliation proceedings. It was emphasized that as there was a complete ban on recruitment, the department had employed contractors for carrying out the petty jobs, who in turn had engaged contract workers. The respondent was not issued any appointment/engagement letter by the appellant. The appellant had never made any payment of daily wages to the respondent as he was not the employee of the appellant and was not directly recruited by the appellant and there was no employer-employee relationship between them. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Thereafter, arguments were heard and the proceedings culminated in the award dated 11.4.2011 passed by the learned CGIT. The CGIT came to the conclusion that there was clear evidence to the effect that the respondent was directly working under the administrative control of the appellant as a Lineman and his services were illegally terminated. Thus, answering the reference in favour of the respondent, the CGIT directed reinstatement of the respondent along with back wages.
5. A perusal of the award of the CGIT would disclose that in support of his case, the respondent had filed two diaries in which he had entered all the jobs undertaken by him on different dates in the Telephone Department. The CGIT too found that these diaries were maintained in an ordinary course of business and were reliable piece of evidence, particularly before the Tribunal, which works on the basis of equity, just and good conscience. The findings that the respondent was directly under the administrative control of the Management, were recorded in the following manner:
“If al
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
