Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
RAJ KUMAR DIXIT – APPELLANT
Vs.
M/S.VIJAY KUMAR GAURI SHANKER, KANPUR NAGAR – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4370 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 29960 of 2014)
Decided On : 12-05-2015
(b) Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 6N – Respondent-firm terminating services of appellant-workman without complying with mandatory requirement of section 6N – Void ab initio. (Para 15)
(1990) 3 SCC 682 – Relied upon
(c) Labour law – Termination – Remedy – Appellant terminated by respondent without complying with mandatory requirement of section 6N – Appropriate Government referring the dispute to labour court for adjudication – Appellant entitled to full back wages. (Para 16)
(d) Administration of Justice – Judicial review – Labour court awarding reinstatement with 50% back wages – High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution re-appreciating material on record – Setting aside Labour court order – Modifying it to lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lakh – Without assigning any cogent reason – Not sustainable. (Para 17)
(1964) AIR SC 477; (2010) 3 SCC 192 – Relied upon
(e) Labour law – Termination – Without complying with mandatory statutory requirements – Held illegal and set aside – Reinstatement is to follow with back wages – back wagers depending upon workman’s gainful employment during the period of adjudication or employer’s financial position. (Para 18)
(2013) 10 SCC 324; (1980) 4 SCC 443 – Relied upon
(f) Administration of Justice – Judicial review – High Court accepting respondent’s contention that its tanker business has been stopped – No pleading made or evidence led before labour court – Further, it was the appellant-workman who approached the High Court against 50% back wages and not the respondent – High Court setting aside Labour court award and awarding lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lakh – High Court exceeded jurisdiction. (Para 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was working as an accounts clerk in the respondent-establishment from the year 1994 and was looking after all the factories of the respondent-establishment. Apart from that he was in charge of maintenance of all the seven tankers in the respondent-establishment and was also looking after the transport office and court work of the respondent-employer and in return he was being paid Rs.1,800/-per month along with bonus as was being paid to other workmen of the respondent-establishment.
On 11.6.2001, the appellant fell sick and approached the respondent-firm for his outstanding salary, the respondent-firm terminated him from his services.
Aggrieved by the order of termination, the appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Kanpur narrating all the relevant facts and grounds in support of his claim.
The Labour Court held that the appellant was under the employment of the respondent-firm and terminating him from his services by the respondent-firm is improper and illegal. The Labour Court directed the respondent-firm to reinstate him in the said post and pay him 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of passing of the Award.
The High modified the Award by awarding Rs.2 lakhs compensation in lieu of reinstatement with 50% back wages as awarded by the Labour Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in setting aside the Award passed by the Labour Court.
Result : Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Writ Petition No.19573 of 2010, whereby the High Court quashed the judgment and order of the Labour Court, Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No.66 of 2009 dated 03.07.2009, wherein the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the appellant-workman in his post along with 50% back wages. The High Court modified the Award by granting compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to be paid to the appellant-workman in place of the Award passed by the Labour Court.
3. The factual matrix and the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are briefly stated hereunder with a view to find out whether the impugned judgment and order of the High Court warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and for what relief the appellant is entitled to?
4. M/s.Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, the respondent-firm herein, was carrying on the business of transporting caustic soda from M/s.Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. in Alwar, Rajasthan. For the said purpose, the respondent-firm was in possession of seven tankers which were used for transporting caustic soda from Alwar to the place of supply.
5. It is the case of the appellant that he was working as an accounts clerk in the respondent-establishment from the year 1994 and was looking after all the factories of the respondent-establishment. Apart from that he was in charge of maintenance of all the seven tankers in the respondent-establishment and was also looking after the transport office and court work of the respondent-employer and in return he was being paid Rs.1,800/-per month along with bonus as was being paid to other workmen of the respondent-establishment.
6. On 11.6.2001, when the appellant who had fallen sick approached the respondent-firm for his outstanding salary, the respondent-firm terminated him from his services. However, the workmen who were junior to him were still working in the respondent-establishment. The appellant-workman requested for reinstatement of his services in his post but the respondent-establishment refused the same which action amounts to retrenchment as they have done so without following the mandatory conditions as provided under Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, “the Act”). Aggrieved by the order of termination, the appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Kanpur narrating all the relevant facts and grounds in support of his claim.
7. The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and in accordance with the claim and written statements of the appellant and the respondent and on re-appreciation of the evidence on record adjudicated the existing industrial dispute between the parties and recorded its finding on the points of dispute referred to it in favour of the appellant which are extracted in the narration of the facts and based on the evidence and circumstances of the case, it held that the appellant was under the employment of the respondent-firm and terminating him from his services by the respondent-firm is in contravention to the provisions of Section 6N and other provisions of the Act which is improper and illegal. The Labour Court directed the respondent-firm to reinstate him in the said post and pay him 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of passing of the Award.
8. The correctness of the said Award was challenged by the respondent-establishment before the High Court by filing writ petition urging various legal grounds. The High Court, based on the findings and reasons recorded on the points of dispute, held that the termination order passed against the appellant-workman is not legal. The High Court in exercise of its judicial review power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India modified the Award passed by the Labour Court, holding that the
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
