SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
TAPASH KUMAR PAUL – Petitioners
VERSUS
BSNL & ANR. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15357 of 2013)
Decided on : 28-01-2014
Per V. Gopala Gowda, J. (Concurring)
(b) Labour laws – Reinstatement – Appellant is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. (Para 3, 4)
(2013) 10 SCC 324 – Relied upon
(2010) 6 SCC 773 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The Industrial Tribunal had passed an award reinstating the appellant but declining to grant full back wages and instead awarded 20000/- as compensation for back wages.
High Court set aside the order of reinstatement and awarded a compensation of 20000/-.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who succeeded in getting an order of reinstatement in his favour by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in Reference No. 27 of 1997 dated 13th May, 2002, by which the order of reinstatement was passed in his favour. However, the Tribunal declined to grant back wages to the appellant except Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the respondent as compensation towards back wages. This Award was passed by the Tribunal since the Management had failed to produce relevant documents to disclose the actual number of days for which appellant has worked and so his termination was held to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. The respondent-Management of the BSNL, however, appealed against the Award passed by the Tribunal by way of a Writ Petition in the High Court before the Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge affirmed the Award passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent-Management. The respondent was not satisfied with the order passed by the Single Judge and refused to give effect to the Award in favour of the appellant and preferred a further appeal before the Division Bench.
4. The Division Bench, however, was pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Award passed in favour of the appellant and in lieu of reinstatement, passed an order directing that the amount of Rs.20,000/- be paid by way of compensation to the appellant which in any case had been passed by the Tribunal as compensation towards back wages. Thus, in effect, the compensation which has been ordered to be paid was legally due to the appellant towards back wages and the High Court set aside the entire Award passed by the Tribunal which in effect can be construed that no amount was paid by way of compensation. Although the High Court recorded that Rs.20,000/- be paid by way of compensation, as aforesaid, the same was towards back wages as per the Award passed by the Tribunal.
5. It is no doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds viz. (i) where the industry is closed; (ii) where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (iii) where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and / or (iv) when he has lost confidence of the Management to discharge duties. What is sought to be emphasised is that there may be appropriate case on facts which may justify substituting the order of reinstatement by award of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the order of reinstatement should be allowed to be substituted by award of compensation.
6. In the instant matter, we are not satisfied that the appellant's case falls in to any of the categories referred to hereinbefore which would justify compensation in lieu of reinstatement. We thus find no justification for the High Court so as to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal which was affirmed even by the Single Judge, but the Division Bench thought it appropriate to set aside the order of reinstatement without specifying any reasons whatsoever, as to why it substituted with compensation of a meagre amount of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant.
7. In view of this we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore the Award of the Tribunal and the order of the Single Judge affirming the same.
8. The appeal accordingly is allowed but without cost.
V. Gopala Gowda, J.(Concurring):- While concurring with the finding and reasons recorded by my sister Justice Gyan Sudha Misra in allowing the Civil Appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Calcutta and restoring the award of the Labour Court with consequential benefits of awarding backwages, I am giving
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.