Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical ... vs Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar on 3 April, 2017
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
ITEM NO.54 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). 37385/2016
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06/08/2015
IN WP NO. 999/2014 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)
RASHTRASANT TUKDOJI MAHARAJ
TECHNICAL EDUCATION SANSTHA, NAGPUR PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
PRASHANT MANIKRAO KUBITKAR RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 03/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, 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
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2017.04.05 17:32:37 IST Reason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4821 OF 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.37385/2016] RASHTRASANT TUKDOJI MAHARAJ TECHNICAL EDUCATION SANSTHA, NAGPUR ...APPELLANT VERSUS PRASHANT MANIKRAO KUBITKAR ...RESPONDENT ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The labour Court held the termination of the respondent workman to be in infraction of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and awarded reinstatement with continuity in service but without back wages. The approach to the Labour Court was after 13 years of the termination made on 1st June, 1994. The High Court in writ petition filed by the appellant affirmed the said order. Hence the present appeal. 2
3. The respondent workman had worked under the appellant for a period of two years and three months whereafer he was terminated on 1st June, 1994. Judicial opinion has been consistent that if the termination is found to be contrary to Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstatement in service is not the rule but an exception and ordinarily grant of compensation would meet the ends of justice.
4. The respondent workman in the present case had worked for a period of two years and three months and that apart he had approached the labour Court after 13 years. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the order of the labour Court and the High Court ought to be 3 modified by granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement without back wages as ordered. It is ordered accordingly. The aforesaid amount of compensation will be paid within a period of six weeks from today.
5. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid modification of the order of the labour Court as also the High Court.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ......................,J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI APRIL 03, 2017