MAHBOOB DEEPAK v. NAGAR PANCHAYAT GAJRAULA & ANR

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 672

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, G.S. SINGHVI

Case summary

MAHBOOB DEEPAK v. NAGAR PANCHAYAT GAJRAULA & ANR.pdf

Judgment text

MAHBOOB DEEPAK v. NAGAR PANCHAYAT GAJRAULA & ANR. DECEMBER 13, 2007 (S. B. SINHA AND G. S. SINGHVI, JJ. ) Labour Law: Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s. 6-N-Daily wager-Termination ofservices for financial irregularities-HELD: Labour Court erred in directing reinstatement -High Court while setting aside the award erred in not considering the effect of non-compliance ofs. 6-N-Workman was entitled to compensation notice andnoticepay-Since workman had workedfor a shortperiod, judgment ofHigh Court modifiedby directingpayment by way ofdamages. Services of the appellant, a daily wager, were terminated for financial irregularities said to have been committed by him. He raised an industrial dispute claiming that his services were to be regularized after three months ofhis joining the service. The Labour Court directed his reinstatement with full back wages. But, the High Court upheld the order ofthe Department. Aggrieved, the workman filed the instant appeal.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. I.. Having regard to the fact that the workman had completed 240 days ofwork during a period of12 months preceding the date of termination of his service, provisions ofSection 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were required to be complied with. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of t the said provision although can be set aside but as has been noticed by this Court in a large number of decisions, an award of MAHBOOBDEEPAKv. NAGARPANCHAYATGAJRAULA 673 reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The factors which are relevant for determining the same, inter alia, arc: (i) whether in making the appointment, the statutory rules, ifany, had been complied with; (ii) period the workman had worked; (iii) whether there existed any vacancy; and (iv) whether the workman obtained some other employment between the date oftermination and passing ofthe award. [Para 6 and 7) [675-D-G) 1. 2.

Applying the legal principles, the relief granted in favour ofthe appellant by the Labour Court is wholly unsustainable. The same also appears to be somewhat unintelligible. The High Court, on the other hand, did not consider the effect ofnon-compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial ·. Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant was entitled to compensation - notice and notice pay. It is now well settled by a catena ofdecisions ofthis Court that in a situation ofthis nature instead ~nd in place of directing reinstatement with full backwages, the workmen should be granted adequate monetary compensation. [Para 10 and 12] [676-C-E] Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban, (2007) 5 SCALE 397, relied on. 1. 3. As the appellant had worked only for a short period, the interest ofjustice will be sub-served ifthe High Court judgment is modified by directing payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages to the appellant by the respondent.

[Para 13] [676-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 3. 9. 2004 of the High Court ofAllahabad in Civil Misc. W. P. No. 35935 of2004. Suresh Kumari and Debasis Misra for the Appellant. Anil K. Pandey, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Vinod K. Tiwari and K. L. Janjani for the Respondents. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Appellant was appointed as a daily wager on a remuneration of Rs. 201- per day in the services of respondent No. 1on 30. 7. 1988. He is said to have been involved in financial irregularities. His services were terminated on and from 16. 7. 1989. He raised an industrial dispute contending that his services were to be regularized after three months of ;: the joining the services. The said contention was accepted by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in his award dated 30th November, 2002.

On the said premise, the termination ofservices ofthe appellant was found to be illegal. It was directed : "... since the date of adopted this award employee Shree Mehboob Deepak s/o Shri Varan Singh shall be reestablished on his post in the investigation ofold service and the other facililities or payment ofthe middle period after discharging date along with which he were obtain in service period should be paid. " - It is difficult to understand the reasoning ofthe learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court. 3. The High Court, however, by reason ofthe impugned judgment passed in the writ petition filed by the respondent herein set aside the said award holding : "I have heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that respondentemployee was deployed as a daily wager in Class-III category and he has no right to the post and deployment ofdaily wager is made purely on temporary basis on day to day basis and respondent- I .

employee could not have been deployed against any class-III post and the appointment is said to have been de hors the rules and daily wagers are not entitled to opportunity ofhearing at the time of dispensation ofservice on the ground ofmisconduct. Here the award impugned passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court did not consider that the termination order dated 16. 9. 1989 was passed in reference to serious irregularities and misconduct. I find force in the contention ofthe petitioner. The deployment ofdaily wagers are made in exigency ofwork and when there was no work the deployment ofdaily wagers is dispensed with without any notice or opp011unity of hearing, even non-renewal of appointment in consonance to the tem1s and conditions ofappointment is not illegal. MAHBOOB DEEPAKv. NAGARPANCHAYAT GAJRAULA 675 The petitioners have no right to the post after a limited period. " 4. Ms.

Suresh Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia, submitted that as the services ofthe appellant were to be made permanent after three months, the High Court conunitted an error in passing the impugned judgment, particularly, in view ofthe fact that other persons similarly situated have been made permanent. In any event, it was urged, as the statutory requirements for valid termination ofservice have not been complied with, the award ofthe Presiding Officer should be restored. 5. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, inter alia, took into consideration the purported misconduct conunitted by the appellant herein. Ifservices were to be terminated on the ground that he was involved in financial irregularities, a departmental proceeding was required to be initiated against him. As indicated hereinbefore, he was asked not to join his duties w. e. f 16. 7. 1989. 6.

Such termination ofservice, having regard to the fact that he had completed 240 days of work during a period of 12 months preceding the said date, required compliance ofthe provisions ofSection 6N ofthe U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. An order ofretrenchment passed in violation ofthe said provision although can be set aside but as has been noticed by this Court in a large number ofdecisions, an award ofreinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. 7. The factors which are relevant for determining the same, inter alia, are: (i) whether in making the appointment, the statutory rules, ifany, had been 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 in passing ofthe award. 8. Respondent is a Local Authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a statute and statutory rules.

No appointment can be made by a Local Authority without following the provisions ofthe recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation ofthe said rules as also the constitutional scheme ofequality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution oflndia would be a nullity. 9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in absence of any statute or statutory rules. Merely because an employee has completed 240 days ofwork in a year preceding the date ofretrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized. 10. Applying the legal principles, as noticed hereinbcfore, the relief granted in favour of the appellant by the La:)our Court is wholly unsustainable. The same also appears to be somewhat unintelligible. 11.

The High Court, on the other hand, did not consider the effect ofnon-compliance ofthe provisions ofSection 6N ofthe U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellant was entitled to compensation notice and notice pay. 12. It is now well settled by a catena ofdecisions ofthis Court that in situation ofthis nature instead and in place ofdirecting reinstatement with full back wages, the workmen should be granted adequate monetary compensation. [See Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban, (2007) 5 SCALE 397]. 13. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that as the appellant had worked only for a short period, the interest ofjustice will be subserved ifthe High Courtjudgment is modified by directing payment of sum ofRs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) by way ofdamages to the appellant by the respondent. Such payment should be made within eight weeks from this date, failing which the same will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 14.

The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. RP. Appeal partly allowed.