Back
2005 Supreme(All) 1086
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sabhajeet Yadav
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAGAR KANPUR
Decided On : 26 June 2005
C. M. W. P. No. 16194 of 2003
G.S.Pandey, SANJAY KUMAR OM, Tarun Verma,
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25-F, 25-G - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985 - SECTION 14, 28 - CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL/LABOUR COURT - JURISDICTION - SERVICE MATTERS - RAILWAY EMPLOYEES - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES - DISCRETION OF THE COURT - JUDICIAL AND JUDICIOUS EXERCISE - RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS - DELAY IN RAISING DISPUTE - SHORT PERIOD OF SERVICE - UNDUE DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF CASE - WANT OF PLEADING AND PROOF OF NON-EMPLOYMENT DURING INTERREGNUM - MODIFICATION OF AWARD.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Union of India, challenged the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur dated 26-7-2002, published in the Gazette of India, New Delhi dated 20-8-2002, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in adjudication case No. 182/1991 which was between Sri Mohd. Fahim and Union of India and another. The opposite party No. 2 filed his claim through the union on the ground that he had worked from 15-2-1980 to 25-4-1981 and 9-5-1983 to 26-3-1984 and subsequently had worked till 18-11-1986 and his services were abruptly terminated without giving any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Central Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question, despite the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Courts or other authorities constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was expressly saved by Section 28(b) of the Act. The Court further held that the Labour Court had erred in awarding full back wages to the workman without exercising its discretion judicially and judiciously, and modified the award to grant 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
Issues: 1. Whether the Central Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question, despite the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985? 2. Whether the Labour Court had erred in awarding full back wages to the workman without exercising its discretion judicially and judiciously?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Courts or other authorities constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was expressly saved by Section 28(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and therefore the Central Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question. 2. The Labour Court had erred in awarding full back wages to the workman without exercising its discretion judicially and judiciously. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement would meet the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition in part, modified the award of the Labour Court to grant 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, and directed the petitioners to reinstate the workman forthwith in service.
By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal/labour Court, Kanpur dated 26-7-2002 published in Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, New Delhi dated 20-8-2002, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition, passed by
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in adjudication case No. 182/1991 which was between Sri Mohd. Fahim and Union of India and another.
2. The relevant facts for the purpose of question in controversy involved in the case in brief are that the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its notification dated 31-10-1991 has referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act 1947 ). The opposite party No. 2 filed his claim through the union on the ground that he had worked from 15-2-1980 to 25-4-1981 and 9-5-1983 to 26-3-1984 and subsequently had worked till 18-11-1986 and his services were abruptly terminated without giving any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. It is further alleged that the persons junior to the respondent No. 2 have been allowed to work whereas the services of respondent No. 2 have been dispensed with without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Act, 1947. The claim set up by opposite party No. 2 was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement wherein allegations made in the claim of opposite party No. 2 were denied and it was stated on behalf of petitioners that the opposite party No. 2 was initially appointed as casual labour in the electrical department on 9-5- 1983. He worked between 9-5-1983 to 15-11-1986 in the Electrical department in different period mentioned in para 5 of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that opposite party No. 2 did not complete 240 days working at a stretch in any year. As regards the allegations that junior persons have been retained in service and services of opposite party No. 2 have been dispensed with, it was stated on behalf of petitioners that the persons mentioned namely, Sri Ravinder Singh, Sri Subhash Singh and Sri Suman Singh were appointed as S. C. /s. T. candidates and other persons namely Sri Mahipal, Sri Amrika, Sri Santosh Kumar, Sri Ram Kumar and Sri Ram Pher Gupta were appointed on compassionate grounds and they were senior to the opposite party No. 2. A replication was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 wherein he claimed the benefit of the provisions of Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Further he has claimed that he has got the status of temporary employee under the aforesaid Manual and is entitled to be regularised. It is stated that vide order dated 26-7-2002 opposite party No. 1 has allowed the claim of respondent No. 2 and aforesaid award has been published by Government of India on 20-8- 2002. A copy of award is filed as Annexure-4 of the writ petition. It is stated that although while allowing the claim of opposite party No. 2, the opposite party No. 1 has held that the workman did not complete 240 days continuous service in 12 calendar months before termination of his services, therefore, he is not entitled for benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 yet in view of provisions contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Manual since the opposite party No. 2 has completed 120 days continuous service and is entitled to get temporary status, therefore, his services could not be terminated without giving him notice as required under Rules. It was categorically stated in the written statement that the persons who belonged to the S. C. /s. T. have been appointed and other appointments have been made on the basis of compassionate appointment and no junior persons have been retained as alleged by opposite party No. 2. In view of these facts also the findings of opposite party No. 1 that there is violation of Section 25-G of I
