Food And Drinks Industries ... vs Punjab Flour Mills And Anr.
1986 Latest Caselaw 136 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the non-grant of the relief of reinstatement to Munna Lal after the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the termination of his services was bad.

2. Munna Lal was employed as a helper for about li years by Respondent No. 1. On 9th Jan., 1971 his services were terminated because he refused to perform the domestic household work of the Factory Miller.

3. Munna Lal then raised an industrial dispute relating to his termination. Conciliation proceedings took place but no settlement could be arrived at. The Lt. Governor then by notification dated 8th October, 1971 referred the following dispute to the Additional Labour Court, Delhi:-

"Whether the termination of services of Shri Munna Lal is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?".

4. The case of Munna Lal, in the statement he had filed, was that he was in continuous service for the last 11/2 years with Respondent No. 1 at a monthly salary of Rs. 72/. It was alleged that he was doing the job of a helper. It was further contended that the Miller wanted him to perform the domestic work which he refused. On 9th Jan., 1971, his services were terminated. Munna Lal made a demand that he should be reinstated but that demand was not acceded to.

before the Labour Court was that Munna Lal was not under its employment and that he was merely a domestic servant of the Factory Miller.

6. After the evidence had been recorded, the Labour Court vide its order dated 28th Feb., 1973 came to the conclusion that Munna Lal was in fact employed by Respondent No. 1. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the termination of services of Munna Lal was illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and it amounted to victimisation of a workman.

7. Having held that the termination of Munna Lal was illegal, the Labour Court then addressed itself to the question as to what relief should be granted to him. The Presiding Officer observed that the workman was a helper to a fitter in the workshop and such a job was certainly one in which an unwanted employee may cause a serious loss to the factory itself. He further held that if the workman was imposed on the management, then because there were strained relations between them serious complications may arise. The Labour Court did not order reinstatement of the workman but instead directed that he would get compensation of Rs. 144/-.

8. The petitioner which has espoused the cause of the workman has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the relief which had been granted by the Labour Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the Labour Court having come to the conclusion that there existed a master and servant relationship between Munna Lal and Respondent No. 1 'and as there was an illegal termination of his services the normal rule thereafter is to order reinstatement. In fact, while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohal Lal v. Union of India , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there would be no occasion for ordering reinstatement because the effect of the order must necessarily be that the termination of services of workman was void ab initio and his services never stood terminated and he must always be regarded as being in service.

9. My attention has been drawn to a number of authorities including the one cited above, where it has been held in no unequivocal terms that reinstatement of an employee who had been wrongly dismissed from service is a normal rule. This being so the Labour Court must make out a good case as to why it wishes to depart from the normal rule. It may be that in some cases there might have been loss of confidence in an employee who was doing sensitive or confidential work. Possibly in such a case it may not be advisable to order reinstatement. In the present case, however, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that Munna Lal was working as a helper to the fitter. Under no stretch of imagination can this be regarded as a work of confidential nature. Munna Lal, at best, could be regarded as a manual worker and merely because there were strained relationships between the management and Munna Lal it would be no ground for denying reinstatement to Munna Lal. There is no basis for the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court to have come to the conclusion that Munna Lal could have caused serious loss to Respondent No. 1. This is a surprise of the Labour Court without there being any basis for it. If the reasoning of Labour Court is correct, then the effect of this would be that in no case would reinstatement ever be ordered. That is certainly not the letter or the spirit of the law. The management, to my mind, failed to make out a case for there being a departure from the normal rule, of reinstatement.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Respondent No. 1 is directed to reinstate Munna Lal. He would also be entitled to all the consequential benefits which would be payable to him on the basis that he had always continued to be in service. The petitioner will be entitled to costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-.

11. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage states that he has not charged any fee, therefore, this money should be paid to the Legal Aid. This gesture of the learned counsel is highly appreciated. I accordingly direct that the costs of Rs. 500/- should be paid to the Indian Council for Legal Aid and Advice, No. 3, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.