The division judge bench of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of the apex court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja Vs. Kutchh District Panchayat held that the denial of back wages has resulted in punishing him, although the delay is attributable to the judicial process. However, the respondent management cannot be absolved of the primary responsibility in its litigative proclivity.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant was appointed by the respondent society as a watchman and after rendering continuous employment, he was terminated from the services without any notice and without following the procedure prescribed by the industrial disputes act, 1947. Thereafter, the management disputed the claim on the grounds that the appellant only worked on a temporary basis and was, therefore, ineligible to receive compensation under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 because he had not put in 240 consecutive days of work in any one year. He was not denied his job as a worker since 1992, though.
The labour court held that the appellant’s termination was illegal and directed his reinstatement with continuity but without back wages. Aggrieved by this, the management challenged the award before the single judge bench of the high court and the single judge bench endorsed the findings of the labour court. Thereafter, the management appealed before the division judge bench of the high court, and the division judge bench set aside the direction to reinstate the appellant workman and instead awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs 1 lakh. This further results in the present special leave petition before the hon’ble supreme court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that there were sufficient material present on record to show that there were 63 labourers who were working with the respondent management, many of whom were juniors to the appellant. It was pointed out that the workman appellant had moved the Labour Court to direct the management to produce all relevant service particulars of its employees’ muster roll, pay register, and bonus register. On the basis of the material present on the record, it was concluded that the termination was illegal. Despite the fact that the award was made in 2010 and approved by a single judge in 2011, it was claimed that the appellant had been unfairly kept out of a job. The management unjustifiably dragged out the situation for an additional ten years, which led to a very harsh denial of back wages to him. Further, it was argued that the impugned order's denial of reinstatement to the appellant was unfair because it did not conflict with the single judge's and labour court's rulings and was not based on any logic or standard.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the Division Bench made the legal decision to reject the reinstatement, so this Court shouldn't interfere with the impugned judgment. It was argued that because the petitioner had been unemployed for more than 20 years, ordering their reinstatement was not in the interests of justice.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble apex court held that the appellant workman could not have been made to suffer on account of the management’s obdurate attempt to have the relief set aside. Furthermore, the Division Bench’s impugned judgment has not interfered with the factual findings. Therefore, the direction to substitute the relief of reinstatement with one for lumpsum payment was not warranted in the circumstances of this case.
The reliance was placed upon the judgments titled Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. And Others, Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Others, and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal.
The hon’ble court held that the in the present case, this court finds no perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the Labour Court and the single judge in directing the appellant’s reinstatement. Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, the denial of back wages has resulted in punishing him, although the delay is attributable to the judicial process. However, the respondent management cannot be absolved of the primary responsibility in its litigative proclivity. In these circumstances, the appellant shall be entitled to back wages for a period of two years.
CASE NAME- Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja Vs. Kutchh District Panchayat
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO.6890 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
DATED- 23.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
