REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7395  OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30550/2008)

Ashok Kumar Sharma              …Appellant

Versus

Oberoi Flight Services     …Respondent

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Delay condoned.  Leave granted.

2. In this appeal  by special  leave,  the workman has  

challenged  the  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  Division  

Bench  of  Delhi  High  Court  on  March  18,  2008  whereby  

monetary compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been ordered to be  

paid by the Management to him in lieu of  reinstatement and  

back wages.

3. The Appellant (for short “workman”) was employed  

by Oberoi Flight Services-Respondent (for short “Management”)  

as a loader on March 10, 1980.  Allegedly on August 31, 1986

while returning from duty, the workman was found carrying 30  

KLM soup spoons illegally in his shoe.  The workman is said to  

have admitted his guilt in writing on     August 31, 1986 itself  

and then again on the next day i.e. September 1, 1986.  The  

Management  acting  on  the  said  admission  of  guilt  by  the  

workman, vide order dated  September 3, 1986 dismissed him  

from service.  Having been unsuccessful in his representation  

and  legal  notice  to  the  Management,  the  workman  raised  

industrial  dispute  before  the  appropriate  Government  which  

was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Delhi on June  

19, 1987.

4. The workman in his statement of claim before the  

Labour  Court  set  out  that  being  a  union  leader,  the  

Management hatched a conspiracy against him for his removal  

and obtained confession letters under threat and coercion.  He  

also  set  up  the  plea  that  without  holding  any inquiry  and in  

breach  of  the  principles  of  the  natural  justice,  the  order  of  

dismissal  was  passed  by  the  Management.   In  the  written  

statement,  the Management,  on the other hand, narrated the  

circumstances in which the workman had stolen 30 KLM soup  

2

spoons by carrying them in his shoe.  The parties led evidence  

in support of their respective stand.  The Labour Court,  after  

hearing the parties, vide his award dated January 31, 1996 held  

that  order  of  dismissal  passed  by  the  Management  was  

contrary  to  law  but  at  the  same  time  it  also  held  that  the  

dismissal of the workman from the service of the Management  

was not unjustified.  The Labour Court, however, awarded full  

back wages to the workman from the date of his dismissal until  

the date of award.   

5. The workman challenged the award of the Labour  

Court  by  filing  Writ  Petition  which  was  heard  by  the  Single  

Judge.  The Single Judge held that workman has failed to make  

out any ground for interference with the impugned award and,  

consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition on July 30, 2007.

6. Not satisfied with the order of the Single Judge, the  

workman preferred Letters Patent Appeal.  The Division Bench  

held  that  it  was  difficult  to  believe  the  contention  of  the  

Management that 30 KLM soup spoons could be put in a shoe  

and that workman walked with the said spoons in his shoe from  

the work area to the security check area.  The Division Bench  

3

also  noticed  that  Management  having  not  conducted  any  

enquiry, the dismissal of workman without issuing him charge-

sheet or a show cause notice was unsustainable.  However, the  

Division Bench vide his judgment dated March 18, 2008 did not  

deem  it  proper  to  order  reinstatement  of  the  workman  and  

instead directed the Management to pay him Rs.60,000/- in full  

and final  settlement of  the claim.  It  is  this part  of  the order  

which is under challenge in this appeal.

7. This Court in U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd.  

V. Uday Narain Pandey1 held thus:

“41. The  Industrial  Courts  while  adjudicating  on  disputes between the Management and the workman,  therefore, must take such decisions which would be in  consonance  with  the  purpose  the  law  seeks  to  achieve. When justice is the buzzword in the matter of  adjudication  under  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  it  would be wholly improper on the part of the superior  courts  to  make  them  apply  the  cold  letter  of  the  statutes  to  act  mechanically.  Rendition  of  justice  would bring within its purview giving a person what is  due to him and not what can be given to him in law. 42. A  person  is  not  entitled  to  get  something  only  because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is  applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose  much of their significance. 45. The  Court,  therefore,  emphasised  that  while  granting relief, application of mind on the part of the  Industrial  Court  is  imperative.  Payment  of  full  back  wages,  therefore,  cannot  be  the  natural  consequence.”

1 JT2005(10)SC344

4

8. In the case of Sita Ram V. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers  

Training Institute2 this Court considered the matter thus:

“21. The  question,  which,  however,  falls  for  our  consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was  justified in awarding reinstatement of the appellants in  service. 22. Keeping  in  view  the  period  during  which  the  services  were  rendered  by  the  respondent  (sic  appellants); the fact that the respondent had stopped  its operation of bee farming, and the services of the  appellants  were  terminated  in  December  1996,  we  are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the  appellants could have been directed to be reinstated  in service. 23. Indisputably,  the  Industrial  Court,  exercises  a  discretionary  jurisdiction,  but  such  discretion  is  required to be exercised judiciously. Relevant factors  therefor were required to be taken into consideration;  the nature of appointment, the period of appointment,  the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the  court for determination of such an issue. 24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined  that payment of adequate amount of compensation in  place  of  a  direction  to  be  reinstated  in  service  in  cases  of  this  nature  would  subserve  the  ends  of  justice.  (See  Jaipur  Development  Authority v.  Ramsahai  [(2006)  11  SCC  684],  M.P.  Admn. v.  Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748] and Uttaranchal Forest   Development  Corpn. v.  M.C.  Joshi  [(2007)  9  SCC  353])

25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of  this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum  of Rs. 1,00,000 to each of the appellants, would meet  the  ends  of  justice.  This  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  aforementioned  extent.  In  the  facts  and  circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as  to costs.”

9. The afore-referred two decisions of this Court and  

few more decisions were considered by us in the case of Jagbir   

2 JT 2008 (3)SC622

5

Singh V.  Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board3 albeit in  

the  context  of  retrenchment  of  a  daily  wager  in  violation  of  

section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more  

than 240 days in a year and we observed thus:

“7. It  is  true  that  earlier  view  of  this  Court  articulated  in  many  decisions  reflected  the  legal  position  that  if  the termination of  an employee was  found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full  back  wages  would  ordinarily  follow.  However,  in  recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position  and in long line of cases, this Court has consistently  taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with  back  wages  is  not  automatic  and  may  be  wholly  inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the  termination of an employee is in contravention to the  prescribed  procedure.  Compensation  instead  of  reinstatement  has  been  held  to  meet  the  ends  of  justice.”  

10. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions of this  

Court wherein award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement  

and  back  wages  has  been  held  to  be  adequate  and  in  the  

interest of justice.

11. In light of the aforesaid legal position, the view of  

the  High  Court  that  monetary  compensation  in  lieu  of  

reinstatement of the workman would be proper cannot be said  

to be unjustified.  However, we find that the compensation in  

the  sum  of  Rs.60,000/-  awarded  by  the  Division  Bench  is  3 JT 2009(9)SCC396

6

grossly inadequate.  Regard being had to all relevant facts and  

circumstances, including the nature of employment and the fact  

that  he  was  a  confirmed  employee,  in  our  considered  view  

compensation of Rs.2 lacs to the appellant by the Respondent  

shall  meet the ends of justice.  We order accordingly.  Such  

payment should be made, after deducting the amount already  

paid, within six weeks from today failing which the same shall  

carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on unpaid  

amount.  

12. Appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent with  

no order as to costs.

………………… …J

(Tarun Chatterjee)

…….………… …..J

       (R. M. Lodha)

New Delhi November  6, 2009.

7