Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gaukaran Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 January, 2017
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, L. Nageswara Rao
1
ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.4 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 (C) NO(S). 24257/2016
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07/04/2016
IN WA NO. 183/2016 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT
BILASPUR)
GAUKARAN YADAV PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 03/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
For Petitioner(s) Mr. J.P. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shankar Divate, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. J.K. Gilda, Adv. Gen.
Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Signature Not Verified
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2017.01.05 16:40:04 IST Reason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.34 OF 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24257/2016] GAUKARAN YADAV ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Labour Court by order/award dated 1st September, 2012 gave relief of reinstatement without back wages to the appellant – workman. The High Court modified the relief granted by awarding compensation of Rs.2 lakh.
3. The termination of the appellant – workman made in the year 1997 was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2
4. It is trite law that for termination in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstatement need not necessary follow and compensation may be an appropriate measure of relief. It is on the aforesaid basis that the High Court had modified the order of the Labour Court. However, in the present case, it appears that the Management had implemented the order of the Labour Court way back in the year 2012 and the appellant – workman has been in employment since then.
5. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the appellant workman, having been reinstated ought not to be disturbed at this stage. Accordingly, we allow the present appeal; set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order/award of the Labour Court 3 in the above terms. We make it clear that we have passed the above order in the peculiar facts of the case, namely, that the appellant – workman has been reinstated and is continuing in service since 2012.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO) NEW DELHI JANUARY 03, 2017