The main legal point established in the judgment is that the classification made by the court should be based on whether the workman had completed 240 days within a period of one year continuous service.

Headnote:
Classification - Labour Court Award - The court held that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in making the classification between those who had ten years of service and those with less than ten years of service. The only relevant consideration is whether the workman had completed 240 days within a period of one year continuous service.
Fact of the Case:

The only issue was whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in making the classification while interfering with the award passed by the Labour Court, between those who had ten years of service and those with less than ten years of service.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the approach made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not sustainable under law and that the only relevant consideration is whether the workman had completed 240 days within a period of one year continuous service. The Division Bench corrected the legal error made by the Single Judge.
Issues: The main issue was the classification made by the Single Judge of the High Court while interfering with the Labour Court's award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the only relevant consideration for the classification should be whether the workman had completed 240 days within a period of one year continuous service.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of with no orders as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The only issue in these cases is, whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in making the classification while interfering with the award passed by the Labour Court, between those who had ten years of service and those with less than ten years of service.

4. We are afraid, the approach made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is not sustainable under law. The only relevant consideration is, whether the workman had completed 240 days within a period of one year continuous service. It was that legal error that was corrected by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment.

5. We are informed that all the respondents/workmen have been working ever since the award was passed by the Labour Court. That means all the respondents have been working for quite some time now.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.1/State has submitted that the State may not have sufficient work for accommodating the respondents. If that be so, it is for the appellant No.1/State to take appropriate steps in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, without prejudice to any other liberty available to them to act in accordance with law.

7. We also find that a coordinate Bench of this Court has already dealt with the similar issue leading to order dated 03.01.2017 rendered in Civil Appeal No.34 of 2017 declining to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court.

8. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 540

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the classification made by the court should be based on whether the workman had completed 240 days within a period of one year continuous service.

Login now and unlock premium legal research