Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY J, S.V.N. BHATTI J
M/S POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
THE 17 WORKERS & ANR. – Respondent
C.A. No.-000965-000965 - 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Mr. Tarun Bajaj, Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, Mr. Akash Kishore, Mr. Animesh Rajoriya, Mr. Digvijay
For the Respondents: Ms. Aruna Gupta, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Mr. A.v.l.s Prakash, Ms. Shrika Gautam, Mrs. Shweta Parihar
The court favors lump sum compensation over reinstatement in cases of prolonged wrongful retrenchment.
Headnote:The judgment analyzed the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 concerning wrongful retrenchment of workers engaged in security services for M/S Power Grid Corporation Of India, which resulted in the Industrial Tribunal’s Award for their reinstatement without back wages. The court assessed that due to the prolonged nature of the dispute and the circumstances, a lump sum payment of Rs.7,50,000/- was preferable over reinstatement. The appeals were thus concluded with the ordered financial settlement to the concerned respondents. The decision set aside the prior orders of the High Court and Labour Court in favor of the appellant.
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the appellant. The respective respondents in this batch of matters are represented by Ms. Aruna Gupta, Mrs. Pragya Baghel and Mr.
Gaurav Dhingra, learned counsel.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Joshi Date: 2025.01.30 Reason: 3. The respondents were engaged to provide security services in the Khammam Sub-Station of M/S Power Grid Corporation Of India. When the workmen, who were appointed through the private contractor were disengaged, an industrial dispute was raised. The learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Warangal then passed an Award on 26.02.2001 (Annexure P/7) declaring that the workmen under the reference are the employees of M/S Power Grid Corporation Of India and they are entitled to reinstatement in the Unit, as Security Guards with continuity of service from 01.12.1994. However, they shall not be entitled for any back wages from 01.12.1995.
4. The Management challenged the said Award but the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Tribunal Award dated 26.02.2001 with the finding that it was a case of wrongful retrenchment.
5. There is some uncertainty as to whether the workmen were paid any compensation under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The appointments were made as far back as in the year 1994, and quite likely, few workmen had reached the age of superannuation and for them, at this point of time, reinstatement as Security Guards may not be feasible.
6. Responding to the above, the appellant has filed additional documents enclosing a chart therein (annexure P-14) to point out the amounts that was received by the concerned- workmen attributable to Section 17B of the ID Act, 1947. The chart below indicates that K. Ramesh at Serial No.20 was not paid anything as he was gainfully employed elsewhere. The contents of the chart being relevant is extracted as under:-
“ANNEXURE P/14
Sr. No.
Name of Worker
Wages Paid in Full
Months Paid
Wages paid in Part (Initial Month)
Month paid
Paid Amount
Paid Amount Through Cheque
Amount Not Collected by worker
Total Amount received by worker
1
K. Ravi Kumar
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
1040
155584
2
M. Ramesh
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
1040
155584
3
K.N. Bhushanam
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
1040
155584
4
G. Venkatachary
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
0
156624
5
B. Rama Rao
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
2080
154544
6
D. Ramu
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
1040
155584
7
Sk. Dawood Ali
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
1040
155584
8
M. Bhadraiah
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
2080
154544
9
K. Yedukondalu
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
2080
154544
10 P. Venkateswarlu
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
2080
154544
11 D. Tirupaiah
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
1040
155584
12 Ch. Venkanna
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
0
156624
13 Ch. Yellaiah
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
1040
155584
14 A. Hanumantha Rao
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
0
156624
15 Sk. Syed Hussain
1040
150
624
1
624
156000
1040
155584
16 Sk. Nagulmeera
1040
92
728
1
728
95680
0
96408
17 A.B. Singh
1040
92
728
1
728
95680
0
96408
18 L. Tirupathi
1040
92
728
1
728
95680
0
96408
19 Ch. Veeraiah
1040
119
624
1
624
123760
0
124384
20 K Ramesh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2746326”
7. From the chart, the counsel for the respondents submits that varying amounts were received by the workmen. It is then pointed out that the respondents have served under the Contractor when they were disengaged.
8. The respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties are considered. The extracted chart shows that sums ranging from Rs.96408/- to 1,56,624/- were remitted to the concerned respondents.
9. Since the Tribunal and the High Court have concluded this to be a case of wrongful termination, having regard to the passage of time and the nature of the job (security staff), we deem it appropriate to say that instead of reinstatement etc., each of the workmen be paid the lump sum
