Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bsnl vs Kailash Narayan Sharma on 7 January, 2014
6k
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 107 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 20780 of 2008)
BSNL & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KAILASH NARAYAN SHARMA ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 20800 of 2008
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 20796 of 2008
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 1870 of 2009
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4741 of 2009
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8254 of 2009
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11891 of 2009
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11892 of 2009
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 27996 of 2009
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 36384 of 2009
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2014
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5501 of 2010
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
In all these special leave petitions the only question which falls for our consideration is in regard to the validity of the order of reinstatement of the respondents.
Leave granted.
It is common ground that all the respondents were appointed on daily wages and continued to work for a period spread over two years to more than seven years. Finding that their termination was retrenchment and being in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act" for short) a direction was given for reinstatement with certain percentage of back wages.
The only contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that even if the termination is held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, the relief of reinstatement ought not to have been granted. In support of the submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in a case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. reported in 2010 (6) SCC 773 and our attention has been drawn to Paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 of the said judgment. Same read as follows:
"8. Lastly, learned senior counsel submitted that even if the order dated 10-2-1987 amounts to illegal termination for want of compliance with Section 25-F of ID Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reinstatement and back wages was not justified and at best monetary compensation to the workmen could have been awarded.
9. In last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate. (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353; State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575; M. P. Admn. v. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748; Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute (2008) 5 SCC 75; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai (2006) 11 SCC 684; GDA v. Ashok Kumar (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575).
Xxx
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. In our considered view, the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the workmen (respondent nos. 1 to 14) shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum."
Yet, another decision on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellants is the decision of this Court in the case of Incharge Officer and Anr. vs. Shankar Shetty reported in 2010 (9) SCC 126 and reference has been made to paragraph 7 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
"7. We think that if the principles stated in Jagbir Singh [2009 (15) SCC 327] and the decisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in mind, it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as a daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to 6.9.1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum."
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submit that once there is an order of reinstatement, the said order is not fit to be interfered with by this Court at such a distance of time. They also point out that after such a long time, the respondents may not get any other employment and, therefore, the order of reinstatement is not fit to be set aside.
We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and we find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants.
The decisions of this Court, referred to above, in no uncertain terms hold that in case of termination in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, relief of reinstatement may not be the natural consequence. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not automatic. In the facts of a given case, instead of reinstatement, monetary compensation can be granted. The cases in hand clearly fall within the ratio of the decisions of this Court, referred to above.
In the present cases, as stated earlier, some of the respondents have worked for periods spread over two to seven years or little over seven years intermittently on daily wages. Their terminations have taken place long back. In the facts and circumstances of the present cases, we are of the opinion that a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to those respondents who have worked for a period spread over two years shall meet the ends of justice. Those respondents who have worked for a period spread over more than two years and up to five years shall be entitled for compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. Such of the respondents who have worked for a period spread over more than five years and up to seven years shall be entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Those respondents who have worked for a period spread over more than seven years shall be entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The appellants shall pay to the respondents the compensation, as directed above, within eight weeks from the date of receipt/communication of this order, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned orders setting aside the orders of termination and directing reinstatement are set aside. The appellants are directed to pay to the respondents, the compensation in the manner indicated above.
No order as to costs.
...........................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) ..........................J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) New Delhi;
January 7, 2014
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.9 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20780/2008 (From the judgement and order dated 24/10/2007 in Writ Appeal No.415 of 2006 of The HIGH COURT OF M.P AT GWALIOR) BSNL & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS KAILASH NARAYAN SHARMA Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and prayer for interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) NO. 20800 of 2008 (With office report) SLP(C) NO. 20796 of 2008 (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and c/delay in refiling SLP and office report) SLP(C) NO. 1870 of 2009 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 4741 of 2009 (With appln(s) for stay and with prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 8254 of 2009 (With office report) SLP(C) NO. 11891 of 2009 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 11892 of 2009 (With office report) SLP(C) NO. 27996 of 2009 (With office report) SLP(C) NO. 36384 of 2009 (With prayer for interim relief and office report) SLP(C) NO. 5501 of 2010 (With office report) Contd..
Date: 07/01/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.D. Agrawala, Sr. Adv.
Mr Pavan Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Prithvi Pal, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
for Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs Rani Chhabra, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Sony, Adv.
Mr. M.K. Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Jain, Adv.
Ms. Namita Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Yudhister Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Verma, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Amar Deep Sharma, Adv.
Mr. S. Gowthaman, Adv.
Ms. Arunima Pal, Adv.
Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, Adv.
Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Adv.
Mr. M.R. Calla, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ankit Acharya, Adv.
Ms. Charu Mathur, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
| (S.K. Rakheja) | |(Indu Satija) | |Court Master | |Assistant Registrar |
(Signed order is placed on the file)