AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this special appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 11th July, 2017 passed by learned Single Judge on a writ petition preferred by the
workman.
A writ petition was filed to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court answering reference against the workman. The Labour Court came to
the conclusion that the workman has not completed 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months prior to the date of retrenchment. The learned Single
Judge, however, found that the workman has completed more than 240 days. For the purpose of counting working days, addition of four weekly
holidays in a month has been made. The termination of the nonappellant-workman was held to be illegal, as it was without following provision of
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947â€).
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the finding recorded by learned Single Judge regarding working days and illegality in
retrenchment is not questioned, the relief granted by learned Single Judge cannot be said to be just and proper. It is submitted that non-appellant-
workman remained in employment for 6 to 7 months only, though, after adding weekly holidays, it comes to be 240 days. For employment of such a
small period and ignoring the intervening period of 23 years, the relief of reinstatement has been granted by learned Single Judge. The prayer is
accordingly to cause interference in the relief, rather, to substitute it by paying lump sum amount to the non-appellantworkman.
 Learned counsel for the non-appellant-workman submits that learned Single Judge has rightly recorded finding regarding working days. It was of
more than 240 days prior to the date of retrenchment. The relief of reinstatement without back wages has been given on finding retrenchment to be
illegal. This Court may thus not cause interference therein. If, at all, any interference in the relief is made, the amount of compensation should be
determined taking into consideration that the nonappellant-workman is pursuing the litigation for last 20 years.
We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Â
The award passed by the Labour Court gives details of working days of the workman but it failed to add weekly holidays therein. The learned Single
Judge thus interfered in the award and held that the non-appellant-workman had worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months prior
to the date of retrenchment. The termination of service was found to be in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. We do not find any illegality in
the aforesaid finding so as to cause interference therein, rather, it has not even been challenged.
The only question for our consideration is of the relief.
It is not in dispute the non-appellant-workman had worked for 240 or 245 days only, that too, in the year 1994-95. Now, we are in the year 2018. The
intervening period is of 23 years or more thus an order of reinstatement in service cannot be said to be just and equitable. In the similar circumstances,
the Apex Court has taken view to allow lump sum compensation. For the aforesaid, reference of following judgments would be relevant :
(i)Â District Development Officer & Anr. Vs. Satish Kantilal Amerlia,SLP (C) Nos.11956-11957/2015, decided on 28th November, 2017
(ii)Â Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC177
(iii)Â Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi Vs. M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd.,(2014) SCC 2014
(iv)Â Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior AdhyapakMahavidhalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors., (2013) 10 SC 324
(v)Â Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota Vs. Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543
(vi)Â Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Kailash Narayan Sharma,(2014) 16 SCC 440
(vii)Â Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation,(2010) 3 SCC 192
(viii)Â Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, (2011) 6 SCC 584
(ix)Â Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryan, (2015) 4 SCC 458
(x)Â Ajaypal Singh Vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2015) 6 SCC 321
(xi)Â Workmen of American Express International BankingCorporation Vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation,
AIR 1986 SC 458
Taking into consideration the judgments of the Apex Court and facts of this case, we are of the opinion that relief granted by learned Single Judge
needs to be substituted.
Accordingly, we set aside judgment of the learned Single Judge and it is substituted with award of compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the non-
appellant-workman. The payment aforesaid would be made within two months from the date or receipt of copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of.