CA NO.     of 2010 @ SLP(C) 9389 of 2008

1

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8550 OF 2010 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. © NO 9389 OF 2008]

THE CHIEF ENGINEER & ORS. ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

SRI. PUTTARAJU ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent herein, a workman was employed as a  

daily  wage  literate  Assistant  in  the  office  of  the  

appellant  organisation  and  worked  as  such  from  14th  

November, 1985, upto 25th September, 1987.  It appears that  

he  was  not  allowed  to  work  thereafter.   He  thereupon  

approached the  Labour Court  on 5th March, 1999,  claiming  

that as he had worked for 318 days (i.e. more than 240  

days) in the previous year he had the protection of Section

CA NO.     of 2010 @ SLP(C) 9389 of 2008

2

25B  of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  and  as  the  

process  for  retrenchment  had  not  been  adopted,  he  was  

entitled to reinstatement and back wages.  The Labour Court  

noticed that the respondent had indeed worked for more than  

240 days, but keeping in mind the delay of 11 years in  

claiming the reference rejected the reference.  The matter  

was thereafter taken to the High Court which has set aside  

the order of the Labour Court and ordered the reinstatement  

of the respondent without back wages.

3. It  is  in  this  situation  that  the  matter  has  come  

before us after the grant of special leave.

4. The respondent has been served but has not put in  

appearance.  We,  accordingly,  requested  Mr.  Pijush  Kanti  

Roy,  learned  counsel  to  assist  us  in  the  matter  as  an  

Amicus.   We  are  grateful  to  the  learned  counsel  for  

assisting us today.  In the light of the fact that the  

respondent had admittedly put in more than 240 days  of  

service, we find no error in the order of the High Court  

insofar  the  respondent's  entitlement  is  concerned.  

However, keeping in mind the fact that the reference was  

delayed by 11 years and the respondent has not been working  

since the year 1987 we feel that the order of reinstatement  

would not be justified.  We, accordingly, partly allow the

CA NO.     of 2010 @ SLP(C) 9389 of 2008

3

appeal, set aside the order of the High Court with respect  

to the reinstatement  and as the respondent is a Diploma  

Holder in Mechanical Engineering, we grant him Rs.50,000/-  

by way of compensation to be paid to him within four months.

5. The fee of the Amicus is fixed at Rs. 7,000/-.

                   .......................J.          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                   .......................J.

                                (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) New Delhi,

   September 30, 2010.