IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.  2335        of 2010  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11487 of 2009)

  Krishan Singh                …… Appellant

Versus

Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board,          Rohtak (Haryana)                                            …… Respondent

J U D G M E N T

A.K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. The  appellant  worked  as  a  daily  wager  under  the  

respondent  from  01.06.1988.   His  services  were  dispensed  

with in December, 1993.   He served a notice of demand dated  

30.12.1997  on  the  respondent  contending  that  his  services

were terminated orally without complying with the mandatory  

provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947  

(for short “the Act”) and that he may be re-instated in service  

with full back wages from the date of illegal termination and  

he may be regularized according to Government policy.  The  

respondent  did  not  respond  to  the  demand  made  by  the  

appellant  and  by  order  dated  23.07.1999,  the  State  

Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act  

to the Labour Court.  The appellant and the respondent filed  

their claim-statement and the objection respectively before the  

Labour Court,  Rohtak,  and led evidence in support  of  their  

respective  cases.   Thereafter,  the  Labour  Court  passed  the  

Award  dated  18.07.2006  holding  that  the  appellant  had  

admittedly  completed  267  days  from  01.06.1988  to  

30.04.1989  and  his  services  were  terminated  without  any  

notice  or  notice  pay  and  without  payment  of  retrenchment  

compensation and the termination was, therefore, in violation  

of Section 25F of the Act and the appellant was entitled to be  

re-instated in his previous post with continuity of service and  

2

50%  back  wages  from  the  date  of  demand  notice,  i.e.  

30.12.1997.   

3.   The  respondent  challenged the  Award of  the  Labour  

Court before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a writ  

petition registered as C.W.P. No.5257 of  2007 and by order  

dated 09.12.2008, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set  

aside the Award dated 18.07.2006 of the Labour Court and  

directed  the  respondent  instead  to  pay  compensation  of  

Rs.50,000/- to the appellant within a period of four months.  

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2008 of the High Court,  

the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. Shri Shekhar Prit Jha, learned counsel for the appellant,  

submitted that the High Court has relied on the decisions of  

this  Court  in  Mahboob  Deepak v.  Nagar  Panchayat,  

Gajraula  &  Anr. [(2008)  1  SCC  575] and  Ghaziabad  

Development  Authority  & Anr. v.  Ashok Kumar & Anr.  

[(2008) 4 SCC 261] for setting aside the Award of the Labour  

Court.   He  submitted  that  in  Mahboob  Deepak’s case,  the  

workman  was  removed  for  financial  irregularities,  but  the  

appellant in the present case was not removed for financial  

3

irregularities.   He  submitted  that  Ghaziabad Development  

Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. (supra) was not a  

case of violation of Section 25F of the Act as in the present  

case.  He submitted that the two decisions on which the High  

Court has relied upon to set aside the Award of the Labour  

Court therefore do not apply to the facts of the present case.  

He submitted that it is now well-settled that if pre-conditions  

for retrenchment of a workman who has worked for more than  

a year stipulated in Section 25F of the Act are not complied  

with, the termination of the service of the workman is illegal.  

He submitted that the Labour Court having found that these  

pre-conditions had not been complied with in the case had  

rightly directed re-instatement of the appellant with 50% back  

wages.   

5. Shri  Randhir  Badhram,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the High  

Court has rightly set aside the Award of the Labour Court  

relying  on  the  decisions  of  this  Court  in  Ghaziabad  

Development Authority and Another v. Ashok Kumar  

&  Anr. (supra)  and  Mahboob  Deepak v.  Nagar  

4

Panchayat, Gajraula & Anr. (supra).  He also relied on  

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3)  

& Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1]  in support of his submission  

that this is not a fit case where the appellant could be  

regularized in service.  

6. The only question that we have to decide in this case is  

whether  the  High Court  was right  in setting aside the  

Award dated 18.07.2006 of  the Labour Court  directing  

reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages and  

directing  instead  payment  of  compensation  of  

Rs.50,000/- to the appellant.  We find that the dispute  

that  was  referred  to  by  the  State  Government  under  

Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court was: “whether  

the  termination  of  the  services  of  the  appellant  was  

justified and if not, to what relief he was entitled to?”  As  

per the claim-statement filed by the appellant before the  

Labour Court, he was appointed by the respondent as a  

daily wager against a regular post on 01.06.1988 under  

the Junior Engineer at Meham and the appellant worked  

there  for  different  periods  until  the  respondent  

5

terminated his services in December, 1993 without any  

notice  and  without  complying  with  the  provisions  of  

Section 25F of the Act.   The respondent in its objections  

did not take a plea that the engagement of the appellant  

was either against a post which was not sanctioned or  

contrary  to  the  statutory  rules  and  admitted  in  the  

objections that the services of the appellant were engaged  

for  different  periods  during  1988-1989,  1989-1990,  

1990-1991  and  1992-1993.   The  respondent  also  

furnished  a  statement  of  the  works  in  which  the  

appellant was engaged during the years 1988-1989 and  

1989-1990,  which  was  marked  as  Exb.  MW-1.  Taking  

into  consideration  Exb.  MW-1,  the  Labour  Court  held  

that the appellant has completed 267 days from 1.6.1988  

to 30.4.1989 and without any notice or notice pay and  

without retrenchment compensation.  In the relief portion  

of the Award, the Labour Court held that as the services  

of  the  appellant  had been terminated  illegally,  he  was  

entitled  to  be  re-instated  in  his  previous  post  with  

continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date  

6

of demand notice, i.e. 31.12.1997.

7. In a recent judgment of this Court in Harjinder Singh v.  

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation [JT 2010 (1)  

SC  598],  the  Labour  Court,  Gurdaspur,  by  its  Award  

directed re-instatement of the workman with 50% back  

wages, but the Award of the Labour Court was modified  

by a learned Single  Judge of  the Punjab and Haryana  

High Court in the writ petition and this Court has held  

that the order of the learned Single Judge of the High  

Court was liable to be set aside only on the ground that  

while interfering with the Award of the Labour Court, the  

learned Single Judge did not keep in view the parameters  

laid down by this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the  

High  Court  under  Articles  226  and/or  227  of  the  

Constitution.   Learned Brother  G.S.  Singhvi,  J.,  in his  

opinion,  has observed that while exercising jurisdiction  

under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, the  

High Courts are duty bound to keep in mind that the  

Industrial  Disputes  Act  and  other  similar  legislative  

instruments are social welfare legislations and the same  

7

are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals  

set  out  in  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution  and  the  

provisions  contained  in  Part  IV  of  the  Constitution  

including Articles 38,  39(a)  to  (e),  43 and 43A thereof.  

Learned Brother Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. agreeing with  

learned Brother G. S. Singhvi, J., has also observed that  

this  Court  has a duty to interpret  statutes  with social  

welfare benefits in such a way as to further the statutory  

goal and not to frustrate it.    

8. Section  11A of  the  Act  clearly  provides  that  where  an  

industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal  

of  a  workman  has  been  referred  to  a  Labour  Court,  

Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the  

course  of  the  adjudication  proceedings,  the  Labour  

Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be,  

is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was  

not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of  

discharge or dismissal  and direct re-instatement of the  

workman  on  such  terms  and  conditions,  if  any,  as  it  

thinks  fit,  or  give  such  other  relief  to  the  workman  

8

including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of  

discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case  

may require.  Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the  

Labour  Court  while  adjudicating  an  industrial  dispute  

relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman and if the  

Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in the facts  

and circumstances of the case to direct re-instatement of  

a  workman  with  50%  back  wages  taking  into  

consideration  the  pleadings  of  the  parties  and  the  

evidence  on  record,  the  High  Court  in  exercise  of  its  

power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of  

India  will  not  interfere  with the same,  except  on well-

settled principles laid down by this Court for a writ  of  

certiorari  against  an  order  passed  by  a  Court  or  a  

Tribunal.

9.   The High Court, however,  has relied on the decision of  

this  Court  in  Mahboob Deepak v.  Nagar Panchayat,  

Gajraula & Anr. (supra) and on reading of the aforesaid  

decision, we find that this Court in the aforesaid decision  

has mentioned the following factors, which are relevant  

9

for  determining  whether  an  award  of  re-instatement  

should or should not be passed:-

(i) whether  in  making  the  appointment,  the  statutory rules, if any, had complied with;

(ii) the period he had worked;

(iii) whether there existed any vacancy; and

(iv) whether he obtained some other employment  on the date  of  termination or passing of  the  award.”

This Court further held in the aforesaid decision that in the  

light of these principles the relief of re-instatement granted by  

the Labour Court in that case was wholly unsustainable and  

has accordingly directed payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- by  

way of damages to the workman with interest at the rate of 9%  

per annum.   

10. The High Court has also relied on the decision of  this  

Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v.  

Ashok Kumar  & Anr. (supra)  and  on  reading  of  the  

aforesaid  decision  we  find  that  the  contention  of  the  

management before the Labour Court was that the post,  

in which the workman was working in that case, was not  

1

sanctioned after 31.03.1990 and this was not disputed  

by the workman and this Court held that if there did not  

exist  any  post,  the  Labour  Court  should  not  have  

directed re-instatement of the workman in service.

11. The aforesaid two decisions  of  this  Court  in  Mahboob  

Deepak v.  Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula & Anr. (supra) and  

Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar  

& Anr. (supra) have no application to the facts in this case.  

In the present case, the respondent has not taken any stand  

before  the  Labour  Court  in  his  objections  that  the  post  in  

which the workman was working was not sanctioned or that  

his engagement was contrary to statutory rules or that he was  

employed  elsewhere  or  that  there  was  no  vacancy.   In  the  

absence of any pleadings, evidence or findings on any of these  

aspects, the High Court should not have modified the Award of  

the  Labour  Court  directing  re-instatement  of  the  appellant  

with  50%  back  wages  and  instead  directed  payment  of  

compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant.

12.    The  decision  of  this  Court  in  Secretary,  State  of  

Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. (supra) cited by the  

1

counsel for the respondent relates to regularization in public  

employment  and  has  no  relevance  to  an  Award  for  re-

instatement of a discharged workman passed by the Labour  

Court under Section 11A of the Act without any direction for  

regularization of his services.

13.   In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the  

impugned order dated 09.12.2008 of the High Court of Punjab  

and Haryana in C.W.P. No.5257 of 2007 and direct that the  

appellant will be re-instated as a daily wager with 50% back  

wages forthwith.  No costs.      

……………………..J.                                                                   (Harjit Singh Bedi)

……………………..J.                                                                   (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi, March 12, 2010.    

1