1. Appeal against Labour Court award for reinstatement and back wages where the workman failed to report for duty despite court-recorded undertakings. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 216
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
M/s. Creative Garments Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kashiram Verma – Respondent
Civil Appeal No 5758 of 2012
Decided On : 16-03-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs.Sonal Gupta,Adv. Mr. Abhishek,Adv. For M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs.Sonal Gupta,Adv. Mr. Abhishek,Adv. For M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Service of notice of workman will have to be effected on permanent address of workman – Even if representative of workman is appearing, he shall furnish permanent address of workman as well.
Headnote:
Labour and Industrial Law – Reinstatement in service with full back-wages – Respondent has not reported for duty till date – He is no more interested in joining duty and must have been gainfully employed after leaving job in question – Award of Labour Court granting back wages and continuity in service to respondent workman deserves to be set aside as he has not reported for duty despite statement made by his Counsel in Court on 30.10.2007 – Present appeal cannot be kept pending as conduct of respondent itself establishes that he is no more interested in employment – Impugned order passed by High Court and award of Labour Court set aside – In future all cases to be filed and in all pending cases, parties shall be required to furnish their permanent address(es) – Even if representative of workman is appearing, he shall furnish permanent address of workman as well – Service of notice of workman will have to be effected on permanent address of workman. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Management has filed the present appeal challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 10.06.2010 vide which the order passed by the Single Bench dated 06.07.2006 was upheld. As a consequence, award of Labour Court was held to be valid. Labour Court vide its award dated 28.10.2005 had directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service from 08.12.1997 with full back wages.
Findings of Court:
It is a case in which permanent address of workman has not been mentioned. The address furnished is care of Union. All efforts made to serve him at the given address remained futile. Finally, appellant served respondent and filed affidavit. The service was at address of the Union, which may not be interested to pursue the case on behalf of the workman.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Management contended that the workman's failure to report for duty despite multiple notices and counsel's statement indicates a lack of interest in employment. (Para 7 )
3. The workman's failure to report for duty despite his counsel's statement in court establishes a lack of interest in employment and back wages. (Para 8 )
4. Failure of a workman to report for duty despite a court-recorded undertaking by counsel justifies setting aside awards for reinstatement and back wages. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order and Labour Court award set aside; directions issued regarding mandatory furnishing of permanent addresses in labour disputes. (Para 9 , 23 )
6. Does failure to report for duty after a court-recorded undertaking affect an award for reinstatement and back wages?
Yes. If a workman fails to report for duty despite a statement made by their counsel in court, it establishes that the workman is no longer interested in employment or back wages, justifying the setting aside of the award. (Para 8 )
7. Is providing a representative's or union's address sufficient for service in labour law proceedings?
No. Parties must furnish their permanent addresses in all cases. Merely mentioning a Labour Union or authorized representative is insufficient, and service of notice must be effected on the workman's permanent address. (Para 12 , 13 , 23 )
8. Which labour laws require the furnishing of residential or permanent addresses in applications?
Requirements exist under the Payment of Wages Act, Workman Compensation Act, Industrial Disputes Act, Minimum Wages Act, and Payment of Gratuity Act, as well as the Code of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court Rules. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The Management has filed the present appeal challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 10.06.2010 vide which the order passed by the Single Bench dated 06.07.2006 was upheld. As a consequence, the award of the Labour Court was held to be valid. The Labour Court vide its award dated 28.10.2005 had directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service from 08.12.1997 with full back wages.
2. A perusal of the paper-book shows that the notice in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was issued on 22.10.2010. As the respondent remained un-served, fresh notice was directed to be issued on 13.12.2010. Dasti service was also permitted through nearest civil court or trial court. On 24.10.2011, this Court being not satisfied that service of the respondent had been effected, directed for issuance of fresh notice subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondent for his travelling expenses as and when he enters appearance. Dasti service was also permitted. Fresh notice was issued on 24.07.2011 as the service was not complete. As per Office Report dated 14.12.2011 in terms of the affidavit filed by the appellant, the service on the respondent was complete but he had not put in appearance till date. Meaning thereby that he is not interested to defend the present litigation.
3. A perusal of the award of the Labour Court shows that the address of the respondent is through some Union and he had not furnished his own address. A perusal of the order passed by the Single Bench of High Court shows that the respondent workman was represented, hence he knew about the challenge to the award of the Labour Court and also dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. The Order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal filed by the Management against the order passed by the Single Bench shows that the statement of the counsel for the Management was recorded that the Management will reinstate the workman and he shall be communicated accordingly so as to enable him to report for duty. Challenge was to the award of the Labour Court only to the extent of award of back-wages. The appeal was admitted. Thereafter, the Management had sent various communications by Registered Post/Courier on 08.11.2006, 10.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 requesting the respondent to report for duty. However, there was no response.
5. Further, when the matter was taken up by the Division Bench of the High Court on 30.10.2007, the statement of counsel for the workman was recorded that he will report for duty on 05.11.2007 at 10:00 A.M. The order reads as under:
“1. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 states that the Respondent No. 1 will report for work at Amir Industrial Estate, Sun Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that if the respondent No. 1 comes to Amir Industrial Estate, Sun Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai, at 10.00 a.m. on 5.11.2007 and meet Mr. S.K. Kedia, he will be permitted to join immediately. The statements are accepted. Put up on 19.11.2007.”
6. The Management sent another letter to the workman on 26.12.2007 specifically mentioning that his inaction to report for duty would amount to presumption that he is no more interested to join the duty. Request was also made to him to furnish his permanent address.
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from his client submitted that the respondent has not reported for duty till date. Meaning thereby that he is no more interested in joining duty and must have been gainfully employed after leaving the job in question.
8. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, in our opinion the award of the Labour Court granting backwages and continuity in service to the respondent workman deserves to be set aside as he has not reported for duty despite the statement made by his counsel in Co
