http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2144 of 2007

PETITIONER: Fazilka Coop. Sugar Mills

RESPONDENT: Jatinder Kumar Gupta and Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18636 of 2004)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.  

       Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the  writ petition challenge was to the award dated 10.12.2003  made by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, Punjab. By the said  award the respondent No.1-workman was directed to be re- instated in service with continuity of service alongwith 50%  back wages from the date of demand notice. Grievance  before the High Court was that the appellant was not  granted opportunity to lead evidence. It appears that in the  writ petition No.14465 of 2001 the workman was directed  to be paid the subsistence allowance. Since the subsistence  allowance was not paid the Labour Court decided in favour  of the respondent and the appellant was not granted  permission to lead evidence. According to the learned  counsel for the appellant, the course adopted was illegal.  Learned counsel for the respondent-workman, however,  supported the orders stating that the order of the Labour  Court for payment of subsistence allowance was not illegal  and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing  the writ petition.   

       A few details so far as the factual position is  concerned need to be noted.  

       By order dated 18.9.2001 passed in C.W.P.No. 14465  of 2001 a Division Bench of the High Court had directed  the matter to be listed before a learned Single Judge on  19.2.2002. Meanwhile, it was ordered that the pleadings in  the case before the Labour Court were to be completed. It  appears that the subsistence allowance amounting to  Rs.5291/- was paid by the appellant vide demand draft  dated 30.1.2002. But the Labour Court had closed the  evidence of the management vide order dated 5.12.2001 on  the ground that the order dated 18.9.2001 passed by the  High Court had not been complied with by that date.  Undisputedly, the amount of subsistence allowance was  paid to the workman after the evidence was closed by order  dated 5.12.2001. The management had not paid the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

subsistence allowance to the workman. He was not re- instated into service during the enquiry proceedings being  conducted by the Enquiry Officer. It is true that no date  was fixed. The High Court was of the view that looking at  the conduct of the management no interference with the  award of the Labour Court was called for.          One factor is clear that there was no date fixed for  payment but dates were fixed before the Labour Court in  the proceedings. The payment of subsistence allowance  after the order of the Labour Court closing the evidence so  far as the management is concerned cannot be termed as  in any manner arbitrary. However, the order of dismissal  was passed in 1992 and the industrial dispute was raised  under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in  short the ’Act’) on 11.5.1994 and a reference was made  under Section 10(1)(c)of the Act thereafter.   

       There appears to be some confusion so far as factual  position is concerned. The management was required to  give opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence on  merits. Since the enquiry was allegedly not conducted in  fair and proper manner  opportunity was granted to the  management to adduce evidence. On the writ petition filed  by the respondent-workman the High Court had issued  notice. After this long passage of time it would not be  proper to direct re-instatement and that too with back  wages. It has been pointed out that the appellant is  suffering huge amount of loss amounting of Rs.35 crores.  In the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court’s  order in law is irreversible. But keeping in view the peculiar  facts of the case we direct that in full and final settlement  of the claims of the respondent-workman a sum of rupees 2  lakhs shall be paid within a period of 6 months from today.  The respondent-workman shall not have any further claim  and/or the appellant shall have no liability so far as   against respondent-workman is concerned.  

       The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no  order as to costs.