2014 Supreme(SC) 812

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
SUDARSHAN RAJPOOT - APPELLANT
Vs.
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10353-10354 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 31173-31174 OF 2010)
Decided On: 18-11-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
Engaging a workman on permanent basis and keeping his status as contractual is unfair labour practice; more so when he deposited the security money like all other permanent drivers and his juniors are working as permanent drivers.
Terminating a regular workman without complying with mandatory provisions of section 6N of UPID Act, 1947 renders the order of termination void ab initio.
Workman incurring disability in course of employment is entitled to protection of Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

Headnote:(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Schedule V, entry 10 r/w Section 2(ra), 25T and 25U – Appellant workman described as contractual driver – Worked for three years before termination – Depositing security money at the time of entry like permanent drivers – Engaging contractual workers on permanent basis – Statutorily prohibited – Amounts to unfair labour practice u/s 2(ra), r/w 25T and punishable u/s 25U. (Para 16)

       (1996) 2 SCC 293 – Relied upon

       (b) U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 6N – Respondent Corporation contention that appellant-workman was contractual driver as mentioned in termination order – No evidence adduced in support – On the other hand, appellant-workman had been working as driver for three years – Contractual drivers are not engaged so long as permanent drivers – Secondly appellant-workman was required to deposit security like permanent drivers – Thirdly, his juniors are working as permanent drivers – Appellant-workman was in fact a permanent driver – Completed 240 days continuous service in 12 calendar months preceding his termination – Termination is retrenchment – Non-compliance of statutory provisions u/s 6-N, 6-R and 6-Q – Termination order void ab initio. (Para 18, 19, 20)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 and 227 – Respondent Corporation alleging negligent driving by appellant-workman – Respondent Corporation neither conducting any enquiry to determine negligence of appellant-workman, nor producing evidence before the Labour Court – Award of Labour court well reasoned – Labour courts given wide powers not only to enforce the rights but even to create new rights – High Court erroneously exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 to set aside well reasoned award of Labour court – Not sustainable. (Para 21, 23, 24, 25)

       (2010) 3 SCC 192; (2009) 8 SCC 556; (2014) 7 SCC 190; (2007) 2 SCC 755; (1981) 1 SCC 315; [1950] LLJ 921 (SC); AIR 1961 SC 867 – Relied upon

       (2006) 4 SCC 1 – Distinguished

       (2006) 9 SCC 434 – Referred

       (d) Section 6N – Provision mandatory – Not complied – No notice given or wages in lieu thereof paid – Labour court rightly setting aside termination – High Court ought not to interfere. (Para 26)

       (1977) 4 SCC 415; (1982)1 SCC 645 – Relied upon

       (e) Labour laws – Reinstatement and back wages – Respondent Corporation guilty of unfair labour practice – Violating mandatory provisions of section 6N of UPID Act, 1947 – Termination set aside – Appellant-workman entitled to reinstatement with full back wages – He, owing to his disability in both legs he is entitled to protection of Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Respondent Corporation held statutorily obliged to provide alternate equivalent job to the appellant-workman in place of the post of driver – Respondent-Corporation directed to reinstate appellant-workman with 50% back-wages from the date of termination till the date of the Award of the Labour Court as also 100% back-wages from the date of Award of the Labour Court till the date of reinstatement with all consequential reliefs and other monetary benefits including the continuity of service in an alternative equal job with the same pay-scale as that of a driver. (Para 30, 31)

       (2013) 10 SCC 324; (2008) 1 SCC 579 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant-workman-driver of UPSRTC was driving a SRTC, when all of a sudden the steering became free due to the iron ball of the tyre being damaged and he lost control over the vehicle. As a result of which the vehicle met with an accident and the appellant-workman broke both his legs.

       After treatment he presented himself for duty with a fitness certificate, when he was told orally that his name was struck off from the rolls of post of driver and has been removed from the services of the Corporation. No order of termination from his services was served upon the appellant-workman on that day.

       The appellant-workman raised an industrial dispute.

       The State Government of Uttar Pradesh, referred the dispute to the Labour Court to adjudicate the following point of dispute: whether the termination of services of the appellant-workman by the respondent-Corporation vide order dated 29.7.2000 is proper and valid? If not then whether the concerned appellant-workman is entitled to receive interest/compensation?

       The Labour Court recorded its finding that the termination of the services of the appellant-workman was contrary to law and accordingly set aside the same & passed an Award. The Corporation was directed to reinstate the appellant-workman without any break in service in the post of driver and pay all his dues, salary etc. from the date of termination of his services and also further directed to the Corporation to continue to pay in future also.

       The High Court has set aside award of reinstatement and consequential reliefs granted by the Labour Court in its Award. The High Court held that the appellant workman was entitled to consolidated damages/compensation equivalent to the retrenchment compensation calculated from the date of the workmen’s engagement till the date of his disengagement.

       Finding of the Court:

       Award of reinstatement passed by Labour Court was justified.

       Appellant-workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and protection of Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

       Result:

       Appeals allowed.