Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, 2007 (1) SCC 575, the employee who had been appointed on daily wages had sought regularization as a permanent Clerk on the basis of the certified standing orders. A finding of fact was recorded that there was no clear vacancy and he was not appointed on a permanent post and placed on probation and, therefore, the directions of the Labour Court granting him the relief of regularization were violative of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). Accordingly, compensation was awarded instead of reinstatement which had been granted by the Labour Court and had been upheld by the High Court. Thus, a factual finding had been recorded in the said case that there was no vacant post and the workman had been classified on the permanent basis by the Labour Court, which was not permissible in the facts of the case. Thus, in peculiar circumstances, it cannot be held to be as such that any binding principle was laid down that there can be no reinstatement in any case pertaining to persons appointed on daily wages.

23 to 26 xxx xxx xxx

27. In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute."

36. The latest on the said issue is the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Hari Nandan Prasad and another vs. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and another, (2014) 7 SCC 190. In the said case, the Apex Court was dealing with two workmen who had been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages by the CGIT. It was noticed that the appointment was on daily wage basis in case of appellant no. 1 as labourer- cum-workman and had been granted the relief of reinstatement and regularization of his services alongwith back wages to the extent of 50%. Similarly, appellant no. 2 was appointed on daily wages as casual typist against vacancy of Class III post who was also given the similar relief, which was upheld by the High Court, which was interfered by the Division Bench of the High Court by holding that the employees had not rendered more than 10 years of service and did not come under the exception carved out in Uma Devi's case (supra). Accordingly, the workman was held having been duly compensated by the amounts paid under Section 17-B of the Act during the pendency of the case. The Apex Court discussed the issue of regularization and the entitlement of reinstatement and it was held that the issue was noticed in judgment of the Apex Court in Casteribe's case (supra) and held that it was not a case only of reinstatement alone and not limited to the validity of termination. The reference contained the claim for regularization of service. The distinction between the difference claimed in a writ petition or a civil suit was noticed and claim adjudicated by an industrial adjudicator. It was held that the Industrial Court has such power where the provisions of the Act specially confers such powers. The judgment of Uma Devi's case (supra) would not take away such power from the Tribunal. The relevant observations read thus:-

34. A close scrutiny of the two cases, thus, would reveal that the law laid down in those cases is not contradictory to each other. In U.P. Power Corporation, this Court has recognized the powers of the Labour Court and at the same time emphasized that the Labour Court is to keep in mind that there should not be any direction of regularization if this offends the provisions of Art.14 of the Constitution, on which judgment in Umadevi is primarily founded. On the other hand, in Bhonde case, the Court has recognized the principle that having regard to statutory powers conferred upon the Labour Court/Industrial Court to grant certain reliefs to the workmen, which includes the relief of giving the status of permanency to the contract employees, such statutory power does not get denuded by the judgment in Umadevi's case. It is clear from the reading of this judgment that such a power is to be exercised when the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice by not filling up the permanent post even when available and continuing to workers on temporary/daily wage basis and taking the same work from them and making them some purpose which were performed by the regular workers but paying them much less wages. It is only when a particular practice is found to be unfair labour practice as enumerated in Schedule IV of MRTP and PULP Act and it necessitates giving direction under Section 30 of the said Act, that the Court would give such a direction.