Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Pritam Chand vs Commr.Of Temple Trust Dharamsala on 26 July, 2017
Bench: Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3516 OF 2010
PRITAM CHAND & ORS. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF TEMPLE TRUST DHARAMSALA & ORS. ... Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant filed a dispute before the Labour Court regarding their illegal retrenchment by the respondents. An award dated 31.05.2001 was passed by the Presiding Judge, Himachal Pradesh, Labour Court. The retrenchment was held to be illegal and violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court awarded back wages to the workmen @ 25% of the last pay drawn till they are re-instated in job.
The Management of the temple-trust filed writ petition before the High Court. The Learned Single Judge vide its order dated 26.05.2004 came to the conclusion that the finding were rightly recorded by the Labour Court. The Labour Court award has been upheld. Signature Not VerifiedHowever, at the same time the Single Judge opined that Digitally signed by SHASHI SAREEN Date: 2017.08.18 15:14:51 IST Reason: since an offer was made for service of 10 days i.e. from 17.10.2001 to 26.10.2001 for doing clearing work, collecting the coconuts and supplying drinking water to 2 the devotees/visitors on the wages of Rs. 51/- per day for the said period, the workmen did not join the duties. The Management passed an order on 27.07.2001 under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Bank draft of one moth's pay along with retrenchment compensation was sent to each of the workmen. The Management of the temple-Trust has also filed CMP No. 502 of 2003 stating that pursuant to the direction of the Court, a sum of Rs. 3,87,606/- had been deposited for payment to the workmen on account of full salary of the workmen from 01.06.2001 to 31.07.2002. The Labour Court has awarded back wages to the workmen @ 25% of the last pay drawn till they are reinstated in the job. The amounts of wages and retrenchment compensation of the workmen who were parties in the case lying in deposit was ordered to be paid to each one of them proportionate to their entitlement. The Division Bench has affirmed the order.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that since there was no reinstatement made and offer for rendering service for 10 days was an independent offer. Learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench erred in law in permitting the respondent to do retrenchment from services afresh without reinstating them, the same could not have been done. 3
In the circumstances, we have no option except to affirm the order passed by the Labour Court and subsequent retrenchment could not be said to be in accordance with law. The offer was made for working only for 10 days, that could not be said to be due compliance.
In view of the above, we are inclined to set-aside the order passed by the Single Judge and in LPA and restore that of the Labour Court. However, it appears that some amount had already been paid, we deem it appropriate to award to what has already been paid to each of the workmen so far, an additional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each in lieu of the back wages for the remaining period. That would suffice towards the back wages. Let them be re-instated as ordered by the Labour Court, in case age of superannuation has not been attained. Obviously they will be entitled for continuity in service for the period.
The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
....................J. (ARUN MISHRA) ....................J. (MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR) New Delhi, Dated: 26th July , 2017.
4
ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 3516/2010
PRITAM CHAND & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
COMMR.OF TEMPLE TRUST DHARAMSALA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 26-07-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Arun Singh, Adv.
Mr. Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(SHASHI SAREEN) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)