REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1750-1751 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 6174-6175 of 2008)

Santuram Yadav & Anr.              .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Secretary, Krishi Upaj M.S.  Bemetara & Anr.                  .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)  Leave granted.

2)  These appeals are directed against the final order dated  

02.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge of the High  

Court  of  Chhattisgarh  at  Bilaspur  in  Writ  Petition  No.  

5508 of 2006 and final order dated 06.11.2007 passed by  

the Division Bench of the same High Court in W.A. (P.R.)  

No. 6823 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the  

1

writ  petition and the writ  appeal filed by the appellants  

herein.  

3) Brief Facts:

According  to  the  appellants,  on  05.08.1989,  they  were  

selected  on  the  temporary  post  of  Nakedar  by  a  duly  

constituted  Selection  Committee  on  the  pay-scale  

determined by the Collector.  At the threat of removal, the  

appellants approached the Labour Court in 1994.  At this  

stage,  respondent  No.1  and  the  appellants  filed  a  joint  

petition  dated  10.01.1995  for  compromise  in  which  

respondent  No.1  agreed  to  reinstate  the  appellants  and  

also to grant seniority and other benefits from the date of  

their initial appointment that is 05.08.1989.  On the basis  

of the compromise petition, the award dated 27.04.1995  

was  passed  by  the  Labour  Court,  Durg,  directing  the  

respondent-therein  to  reinstate  the  appellants  herein.  

Again in 2000, when an attempt was made to remove the  

appellants arbitrarily, initially it was the High Court which  

granted  status  quo  in  their  favour  and  thereafter  the  

2

higher  authorities  intervened  and  prevented  the  

respondents from victimizing the appellants.   In view of  

the  said  efforts,  the  respondents  once  again  ordered  

reinstatement of the appellants on 06.01.2001.  

4) Despite such voluminous material demonstrating the  

continuous  working  of  the  appellants  with  the  

respondents,  according  to  the  appellants  they  were  

dismissed on the ground of failure to establish that they  

worked  for  more  than  240  days  continuously  in  one  

calendar  year.   Aggrieved  by  the  same,  the  appellants  

approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.  By  

the  order  impugned,  the  High Court,  after  pointing  out  

that the appellants were on daily wage basis and have not  

completed  240  days  in  one  calendar  year  which  is  the  

condition precedent for attracting the provisions of Section  

25F of  the Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947 confirmed the  

order  of  the  Labour  Court  and  dismissed  their  writ  

petition.   The  said  order  is  under  challenge  in  these  

appeals.   

3

5) Heard  Mr.  Akshat  Shrivastava,  learned counsel  for  

the appellants and Mr. Milind Kumar, learned counsel for  

the respondents.   

6) At  the  outset,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants-workmen  fairly  stated  that  because  of  the  

ignorance  though  the  appellants  were  having  adequate  

materials in the form of documents and communications  

from the  respondents/employer,  they  were  not  properly  

placed the same before  the Labour Court  in support  of  

their claim for reinstatement.  He also submitted that even  

before  the  High Court  these  additional  documents  were  

not placed for consideration and requested this Court to  

consider the same in order to render substantial justice to  

the  workmen.   The  appellants  have  filed  a  separate  

application  for  taking  those  additional  documents  

Annexures  P-18  and  P-19  on  record.   Considering  the  

plight of the workmen, we perused the said Annexures P-

18  and  P-19  which  contain  details  such  as  number  of  

days worked in a month, salary paid by the respondents  

4

commencing  from  year  1994  ending  with  2004.   The  

documents in Annexures P-18 and P-19 clearly show the  

number of days on which both the appellants worked.  

7) Apart from the above details, the appellants have also  

pressed  into  service  Annexure-P4,  the  terms  and  

conditions  of  compromise  entered  into  between  the  

appellants/workmen and the  Krishi  Upaj  Mandi  Samiti,  

Bemetara/Management.  Since Annexure-P4 was pressed  

into service by the workmen, it is useful to refer the same:

“ANNEXURE P/4

BEFORE THE HON’BLE LABOUR COURT, DURG

Case No. 18/1994 I.D. Act Date of Institution: 10.01.1995

Balram Singh Rajput, Clerk Santuram Yadav, Nakedar Santosh Yadav, Bhritya … First Party

AND

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bemetara   … Second Party

Both parties respectfully submits that the both parties have  arrived at compromise under the following terms and conditions

5

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COMPROMISE

1. That the second party will reinstate the first party workmen  into their services and they will be granted seniority from the  date of their first appointment.

2. That towards the symbolic backwages for the period in the  meantime,  the  second  party  will  pay  a  sum of  Rs.1/-  per  workmen.

3. That the first party workmen will get salary from the date of  their joining of duty and as per the Circular No. 2546 dated  28.02.1994  of  the  Hon’ble  Collector,  Durg  in  the  following  manner

Balram Singh Rajput, Clerk - Rs. 1412/- Santu Ram Yadav, Nakedar - Rs. 996/- Santosh Kumar Yadav, Bhritya - Rs. 996/-

Per month.  Apart from the aforesaid Circular, the Circulars issued  by the Hon’ble Collector in this reference, shall also be applicable  on both parties.  

It is respectfully prayed that an Award may be passed under the  terms and conditions of the aforesaid compromise.

Prayed accordingly.

Durg Date: Advocate for the Second Party  

Applicant: 1. Balram Singh Rajput, Clerk 2. Santu Ram Yadav, Nakedar 3. Santosh Kumar Bhritya

Advocate for the First Party” 8) Based  on  the  compromise  between  the  appellants  

and the respondent-management, the Labour Court, Durg  

by  award  dated  27.04.1995  while  making  a  reference  

6

about justifiability  of  the termination of service of these  

workmen recorded the compromise deed and directed the  

management  to  reinstate  Santuram Yadav  and Santosh  

Yadav, the appellants herein.

9) On going through Annexure P-4, compromise memo  

between the workmen and the management, followed by  

an award dated 27.04.1995 of the Labour Court, Durg as  

well as the materials furnished in the form of Annexures  

P-18 and P-19 about the number of days on which both  

the  appellants  worked  and  the  wages  received  clearly  

support their stand.  We are conscious of the fact of the  

implication of Constitution Bench decision of this Court in  

Secretary,  State  of  Karnataka  and  Others vs.  

Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1.  However, in view  

of  the  peculiar  facts,  namely,  the  stand  taken  by  the  

Management  in  the  form  of  compromise  agreeing  to  

reinstate and provide seniority from the date of their first  

appointment  05.08.1989,  as  evidenced  in  the  

“Compromise  Deed”,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  

7

information/materials mentioned above cannot be ignored  

lightly though not projected before the Labour Court and  

the  High  Court.  Considering  the  abundant  materials  

which  were  unfortunately  not  placed  before  the  Labour  

Court  and  in  order  to  give  an  opportunity  to  these  

workmen,  we  set  aside  the  order  of  the  Labour  Court,  

Durg  dated  08.08.2006  in  case  No.  56/ID  

Act/Reference/2005  and  the  order  of  the  High  Court  

dated 02.11.2006 in Writ Petition No. 5508 of 2006 and  

order dated 06.11.2007 in W.A. (P.R.)  No. 6823 of 2007  

and remit the matter to the Labour Court, Durg with a  

direction  to  consider  the  claim  of  the  workmen  afresh.  

The workmen are permitted to place Annexures 4, 5, 18  

and  19  as  well  as  any  other  relevant  documents  in  

support  of  their  claim  before  the  Labour  Court.   The  

respondents/management are also permitted to place the  

relevant material, if any, in support of their defence.  Both  

the workmen and the management are permitted to place  

their  relevant  materials  in  support  of  their  respective  

8

stand  within  a  period  of  eight  weeks  and  thereafter,  

Labour  Court,  Durg  is  directed  to  consider  and  pass  

appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording  

opportunity  to  both  parties,  within  a  period  of  three  

months thereafter.  

10) The civil appeals are allowed on the above terms.  No  

costs.  

...…………………………………J.                       (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.            (R.M. LODHA)  

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 16, 2010.           

9