2014 Supreme(SC) 356

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
BHUVNESH KUMAR DWIVEDI – APPELLANT
VS.
M/S HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4883-4884 OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NOS.554-555 OF 2012)
Decided On : 25-04-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
UP ID Act does not contain any provision in pari materia with section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947.
Burden of proving gainful employment of the worker after termination lies on the employer.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226/227 – Judicial review of labour cases – Interference by High Court – Permissible only on the procedural level and in case award of the Tribunal is perverse – Instantly – Instantly Labour Court awarding reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits – High Court modifying the award and simply awarding compensation to the tune of 1,00,000/ – Not proper and justified. (Para 18)

       (2010) 3 SCC 192; (2012) 5 SCC 443; (2011) 6 SCC 584 – Relied upon

       (b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2 (oo) (bb) and section 6-N, UP Industrial Disputes Act – UP Act not containing any provision in pari materia to section 2(oo)(bb) of the Central Act – Service of appellant terminated on expiry of the contract period of service – Section 2(oo)(bb) not attracted – Would fall within the definition of retrenchment under U.P. I.D. Act and provisions of section 6-N of the State Act mandatorily required to be fulfilled – Requirements of section 6-N not fulfilled – Retrenchment void ab initio – Provisions of State Act remaining unaffected by Central Act – Artificial breaks do not make a worker a temporary worker – Tantamount to ‘unfair labour practice’ u/s 2(ra) of Central Act – Not permissible – Sections 25T and 25U read with entry at Serial No. 10 in the Vth Schedule to of Central Act. (Para 20, 21, 22, 23, 26)

       (2002) 10 SCC 89 – Relied upon

       (c) UP Industrial Disputes Act – Section 6-N – Appellant continuously working for 6 years – Termination – Amounts to retrenchment – Provisions of section 6-N attracted – Requirements of section 6-N not fulfilled – Appellant entitled to reinstatement. (Para 27, 29)

       AIR 1976 SC 1111; (2010) 5 SCC 497 – Relied upon

       (d) Labour Law – Back wages – Appellant wrong fully terminated – Burden of proving that he was gainfully employed lie on employer – Burden not discharged – Appellant entitled to full back wages. (Para 33)

       (2013) 11 SCC 626; (2005) 5 SCC 591; (2013) 10 SCC 324 – Relied upon

       (e) Constitution of India – Article 227 – Labour Law – Laissez faire – Labour Court rightly reinstated the appellant and correctly awarded back wages – High Court holding that appellant resigned by not joining duty as badly worker and awarding retrenchment compensation – Exceeding jurisdiction under Article 227. (Para 35)

       (2010) 3 SCC 192 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant-workman was appointed as Labour Supervisor in the employer’s factory on 30.12.1992 and he worked continuously in the said post till 28.7.1998- the day on which his services were terminated. Thus the appellant- workman had worked for six calendar years from the date of his appointment till the termination of his service and he rendered more than 240 days of continuous service in every calendar year before his termination.

       The respondent-employer terminated the services of appellant- workman on 27.7.1998 as per practice with the reason ‘sanction expired’. The respondent-employer neither paid retrenchment compensation nor issued any notice or paid wages in lieu of the same to the appellant-workman as mandated under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. During the entire period of service of the appellant-workman with the respondent-employer, the management followed the process of annually terminating him from service and again reappointing him in the same post by assigning the same Badge No., ID No. in the same department of Construction Division with the marginal increase of salary and dearness allowance per month.

       As per the appellant-workmena, termination of his contract is a case of retrenchment as opposed to the provision in Section 6N of the U.P. I.D. Act. The employer on the other hand, did not comply with the mandatory provision of s. 6-N of the U.P. I.D. Act. Therefore, as per the appellant-workman, termination of his service is in contravention of the provisions of the U.P. I.D. Act and the legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court.

       Appellant-workman raised an industrial dispute with a request to the state government to make reference for adjudication of existing industrial dispute regarding the termination of service of the appellant workman from his service by the employer.

       The Labour Court passed an award in favour of the appellant-workman holding that the termination of his service is not justified. Further, the Labour Court has held that the appellant is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits as if his services were never terminated.

       The respondent-employer filed Writ Petition before the learned single Judge of the High Court questioning the correctness, legality and validity of the award passed by the Labour Court

       The High Court concurred with the finding of the Labour Court wherein it has held that the respondent’s action is in contravention of Section 6-N of the U.P. I.D. Act.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227.

       Result: Appeal allowed.