2010 (5) Supreme 88
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Anoop Sharma — Appellant
versus
Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (Haryana) — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3478 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17965 of 2008)
Decided on : 9-4-2010
(1964) 5 SCR 64; (1999) 1 SCC 566; (2002) 6 SCC 552; JT 2002 (8) SC 69; (2004) 10 SCC 460; 2006 (11) SCALE 292; 2008 (12) SCALE 582 – Relied upon
AIR 1997 SC 3657; (2006) 3 SCC 81; (2006) 6 SCC 221; (2006) 4 SCC 1; (2007) 5 SCC 755; (2007) 5 SCC 745 – Distinguished
(b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25-F(a) and (b) – The provision is mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee nullity. (Para 13)
AIR 1960 SC 610; (1964) 6 SCR 22; (1976) 1 SCC 822; (1980) 3 SCC 340; (1981) 3 SCC 225; (1982) 1 SCC 645; (1980) 4 SCC 443; (1984) 1 SCC 509; (1991) 1 SCC 189; (2003) 4 SCC 619 – Relied upon
(c) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25-F – It is incumbent on the employer to pay the workman the wages for the period of the notice in lieu of the notice at the time when he was asked to go. (Para 14)
(1967) 2 SCR 391; (1976) 1 SCC 822; (2003) 4 SCC 619 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Basic principle of necessity of giving reasons while setting aside an award is the issue in this appeal.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.The only question which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court erred in upsetting award dated 1.8.2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”) for reinstatement of the appellant without even recording a finding that the same suffered from any jurisdictional error or violation of the rules of natural justice or was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
3.The appellant was engaged/employed by the respondent as Mali-cum- Chowkidar with effect from 11.10.1995. He was paid monthly wages at the rate of Rs.1900/-. His service was discontinued with effect from 25.4.1998. The dispute raised by the appellant was referred by the Government of Haryana to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). In the statement of claim filed by him, the appellant pleaded that he had worked for a period of more than two years and six months; that his service was discontinued with effect from 25.4.1998 without giving him notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation and without complying with mandate of Section 25-N of the Act. Another plea taken by the appellant was that no seniority list of the workers had been prepared and persons junior to him, namely, Ramesh, Amarjit, Jagbir and Rohtash were retained in service. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it was pleaded that the services of the appellant and other similarly situated employees were discontinued because the State Government had issued instructions to that effect in the wake of financial crisis. It was further pleaded that the workman was offered compensation along with the letter of termination, but he refused to accept the same and left the station and, therefore, demand draft bearing No.056997 dated 25.4.1998 for a sum of Rs.5,491/- was sent at his residence. For the sake of convenient reference, the relevant portions of the written statement, as contained in the paper book of this appeal, are extracted below:-
“PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
1. xxx xxx xxx
2. That as per rules prescribed in section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act, the workman was offered the amount of compensation with termination letter but the claimant refused to take the same and soon after he left the station also. A demand draft bearing No.056997 dated 25.4.98 amounting to Rs.5491/- was sent to the 18.8.1998 workman residence but he refused to accept it and registered letter received back undelivered. The said draft/banker cheque was once again sent to the claimant home address. 2nd time the same was received/accepted by the claimant. Keeping-in-view the facts stated above the respondent is not at fault in any manner so the present claim statement filed by the claimant is not maintainable in any manner.
ON MERIT
1. That in reply to para no.1 of the claim statement it is stated that the claimant was engaged as casual labour in 12/95 and his services were dispensed with on 25.498 due to financial crunch being experienced by the Govt. of Haryana as already explained in para no.1 of the preliminary objection.
a) That para no.1(a) of the claim statement is wrong and denied, the notice dated 25.4.98 along with a demand draft bearing No.056997 dated 25.4.98 amounting to Rs.5491/- was offered to the claimant on dated 25.4.98 but the claimant refused to take the same and soon after he left the station also, later on the said draft was sent to the claimant residence which was received by him.
b) That the para no.1(b) of the claim statement is wrong and denied as already explained above the retrenchment compensation as per Section 25-F of the I.D. Act was offered to the claimant on 25.4.98 but he refused to take the same and soon after left the station also. The demand draft was sent to his home address which was received by him.
c) xxx xxx xxx
d) xxx xxx xxx”
4.The appe
Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar
Municipal Council, Samrala v. Raj Kumar
Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh
Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Om Pal
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan
Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. v. Ram Bhagat
Mohd. Shahnawaz Akhtar v. Ist ADJ Varanasi
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay
State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money
Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala
Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.
L. Robert D’Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway
Surendra Kumar Verma v. Industrial Tribunal
Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Das
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.