Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The Principal Secretary (Pw) vs Ashok Kumar on 23 March, 2015
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Shiva Kirti Singh
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3119 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.34234/2013)
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PW) & ANR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Leave granted.
This is an unfortunate case in which the Labour Court passed an Award dated 1.12.2012 relating to an alleged non-employment which admittedly occurred in November, 1988 with reference to which a dispute was raised in the year 2002 i.e. nearly after thirteen years. Even thereafter the respondents did not show any keen interest in getting the said dispute adjudicated.
In the light of such indifferent attitude displayed by the respondent the dispute itself came to be dismissed for default on 14.12.2007. Thereafter, after three and a half years an application was moved for restoration on 16.8.2011 which was allowed by the Labour Court by order dated 3.9.2012 subject to payment of costs and on payment of costs, the dispute came to be restored.
In the above-said process, there is a time gap of 25 years from the alleged date of termination i.e. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by November 1988 and the passing of the Award by the Labour Narendra Prasad Date: 2015.03.25 17:14:44 IST Reason: Court on 1.12.2012. When we perused the Award, we find that based on exhibit RW1/A which is a mandays chart 1 relating to the respondent, he was engaged as a daily wages Baildar as between January, 1987 and such engagement was intermittent up to the month of November, 1988. There is also another finding based on the very same exhibit to the effect that the respondent did not actually work for 240 days in between the said period when he was engaged as a daily wager. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly rendered a finding that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the I.D. Act) was not attracted. Thereafter, we find that the Labour Court proceeds on the footing that in between the years 2000 and March 2012 some 52 fresh hands were engaged by the appellants and that at the time of such engagement of new hands, the respondent was not afforded any opportunity and thereby violation of provisions of Section 25H of the I.D. Act occurred.
We fail to understand as to how the Labour Court without considering the total indifferent attitude displayed by the respondent in not approaching the Management or the Court for nearly 13 years from the alleged date of his non-employment, which occurred as early as in November, 1988, venture to straightaway came to the conclusion that there was a violation of Section 25H of the I.D. Act simply because between 2000 and March, 2012 some fresh hands came to be engaged by the appellant. The said conclusion of the Labour Court is totally perverse and there is absolutely no legal or factual foundation for reaching such a conclusion. Based on the said conclusion, the Labour Court proceeded to grant the relief of reinstatement of the respondent forthwith by the present Award passed in the month of December, 2012.
Here again we find total contradiction in the Award 2 of the Labour Court, inasmuch as, in paragraph 13 the Labour Court itself found, based on exhibit RW1/A, that the engagement of the respondent between January, 1987 and November, 1988 was intermittent and the said engagement did not result in working of 240 days in a block of twelve calendar months and thereby compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, namely, legal requirement for payment of retrenchment compensation did not arise. However, ignoring its own finding, the Labour Court proceeded to pass an Award of setting aside the non-existing order of retrenchment alleged to have been made in the month of January, 1989. The said part of the Award also disclose the most casual and recalcitrant manner in which the Labour Court proceeded to determine the rights of the parties without forming any legal basis for its conclusions.
Unfortunately, the Division Bench before whom the appellants challenged the said Award without making any effort to examine the correctness of any of the findings of the Labour Court, in a vary casual manner dismissed the writ petition by a cryptic order by holding that what was granted was only reinstatement without any other benefit and, therefore, the Award did not call for interference. We find a total non-application of mind on the part of the Labour Court as well as by the High Court in having passed an order of grant of reinstatement with reference to a non-employment for which the appellant was not found to be responsible based on any legally acceptable material but yet heavy burden of reinstatement was ordered after nearly 24 years and consequently, we have no other option except to interfere with the Award as well as the order of the Division Bench by setting aside the same.
3The appeal stands allowed and the Award of the Labour Court dated 1.12.2012 as well as the impugned order of the High Court dated 23.5.2013 are set aside.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
................................J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ................................J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH] NEW DELHI;
MARCH 23, 2015
4
ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV
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 (C) No(s). 34234/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/05/2013 in CWP No. 3166/2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PW) & ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 23/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Suryanarayana Singh,AAG Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Giridhar G. Upadhyay,Adv. Ms. Asha Upadhyay,Adv.
Mr. J.P. Tripathi,Adv.
Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5