Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dharamraj Nivrutti Kasture, was appointed as a daily-wage peon in Zilla Parishad on 23.03.1983 for two months, and his services were discontinued on 31.12.1987 by order dated 07.01.1988. He filed a complaint under Sections 28 read with Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he had completed 240 days in each year. The Labour Court on 23.10.2000 set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement with continuity but denied back wages because the appellant had received 75% of last drawn wages for about 12 years under an interim order. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the revision filed by the Zilla Parishad. The High Court, in writ petition, set aside the reinstatement order, holding that entry into service was in violation of rules and without public participation, and that the Labour Court had not recorded findings on unfair labour practice. The High Court awarded compensation of Rs.50,000 in lieu of reinstatement. The Supreme Court, considering that the appellant was out of employment for over 32 years and had received interim wages, declined to interfere with the denial of reinstatement but enhanced compensation to Rs.1,50,000, noting that Rs.50,000 had already been paid, and directed payment of the balance Rs.1,00,000 within eight weeks. The appeal was partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Reinstatement - Compensation in Lieu - Sections 28, Schedule IV Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 25-F Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Daily-wage employee terminated without compliance with Section 25-F - Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity but no back wages - High Court set aside reinstatement due to illegal entry into service and long gap, awarded Rs.50,000 compensation - Supreme Court held that reinstatement after more than three decades is not appropriate, but enhanced compensation to Rs.1,50,000 considering the circumstances (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of reinstatement and awarding compensation in lieu thereof, and whether the compensation amount was adequate.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court order by enhancing compensation from Rs.50,000 to Rs.1,50,000. The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000 (after deducting Rs.50,000 already paid) to be paid within eight weeks. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reinstatement not automatic for daily-wage employees after long gap
- compensation in lieu of reinstatement can be awarded
- Section 25-F Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Sections 28 and Schedule IV Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
- 1971
