2015 Supreme(SC) 279

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. - APPELLANT
Vs.
CHARAN SINGH - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2381 OF 2007
Decided on: 26-03-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
Fisheries Department of the State of U.P. is an industry.
Workman’s termination by giving one month’s wages without complying with statutory provisions tantamount to retrenchment.
Termination of workman who worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months by stating that his services are no longer required is retrenchment.
When Tribunal holds workman entitled to reinstatement and employer does not adduce evidence that the workman was gainfully employed during the period, back wages ought to be awarded.
When workman was kept out of employment for four decades making him and his family suffer by denying their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21, the workman would be entitled to full back wages.

Headnote:(a) Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(k) – Fisheries Department of the State of U.P. is an industry – Dispute raised by workman is an industrial dispute. (Para 12)

       (b) Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 6-N and 6-W – Workman worked for 240 days in calendar year – Work of perennial nature – Terminated by paying one month’s wages – Termination held illegal – Courts below rightly directing reinstatement – Termination in 1975 – Tribunal not awarding back wages – High Court limiting the same to period between 24.2.1997 to 31.1.2005 only – No reasons given – Workman entitled to back wages even if he was gainfully employed. (Para 13)

       (c) Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s) – Termination letter stating the services of the workmen were not required any longer – Moreover, the post of Tube well operator was not abolished as claimed – It was merely renamed to Nalkoop Mechanic, class IV employee – Tantamount to retrenchment. (Para 14)

       (d) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 33 – Tribunal awarding reinstatement – Not awarding back wages even though appellant not adducing any evidence about gainful employment of the workmen during the period – 50% back wages awarded. (Para 17, 20, 21)

       (1999) 8 SCC 229; (2013) 10 SCC 324; (2014) 11 SCC 85 – Relied upon

       (1995) Supp (4) SCC 241; (1997) 6 SCC 723 – Distinguished

       (e) Constitution of India – Articles 19 and 21 – Respondent wrongly denied work for four decades – Respondent and his family suffering – Their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 denied – 50% bck wages awarded from date of the termination order, i.e., 22.08.1975 till the date of the Tribunal award, i.e., 24.02.1997 – Direction of High Court for full back wages from 24.02.1997 to 31.01.2005 retained. (Para 22, 23, 24)

       (1985)3 SCC 545 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The respondent was appointed as a temporary Tube-well Operator w.e.f. 06.03.1974 by the Assistant Director of Fisheries Department, Meerut (U.P). His services were terminated vide letter dated 22.08.1975 stating that he was a temporary employee and his services were no longer required by the Department. He was given one month’s wages in lieu of the notice.

       On 01.05.1976, the respondent filed a petition before the Conciliation Officer, Meerut, against his wrongful termination as he was a permanent employee and the provisions under Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been complied.

       The matter was transferred from the Conciliation Officer to the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur for adjudication.

       Ultimately the respondent raised industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.

       The Industrial Tribunal has answered the questions referred to it, in favour of the respondent, stating thereby that the termination of the services of the workman was illegal and was liable to be set aside. The Industrial Tribunal directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent on any post equivalent to the post of Tube-well Operator. However, the workman was not granted any back wages.

       The appellant offered a letter of appointment to the respondent workman to the post of fisherman. However, the respondent workman did not join his duties to the said post even after repeated reminders from the appellant. The appellant thereafter, filed a Misc. Writ Petition before the High Court contending that the respondent workman has been reinstated on the post of “Machhuwa”, which they claimed was equivalent to the post of Tube-well Operator.

       The High Court held that the State Government had kept the workman out of job for many years and therefore, the State Government is liable to pay the entire amount due to the workman for the above mentioned period.

       Finding of the Court:

       Tribunal erred in not awarding back wages.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.