UTTRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. M.C. JOSHI

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 114

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

UTTRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. M.C. JOSHI.pdf

Judgment text

UTfRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. M. C. JOSHI FEBRUARY 23, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] Labour Laws: U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s. 6N-Daily wager-Termination of services after a short period- Raising industrial dispute after 6years-Labour Court ordering reinstatement with 50% back wages-High Court reducing back wages to 25'Yc;-Hekl, on facts, impugned judgments substituted by an award of compensation for a sum ofRs. 75,0001- infavour of worker-Delay! Laches-Raising ofindustrial dispute after 6 years-Effect of Respondent, a seasonal daily wage worker, after six years oftermination of his services, approached the conciliation officer. The conciliation fffort having failed, a reference was made by the State Gov~rnment to the Labour Court, which held that the employer contravened provisions ofs. 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directed reinstatement of the worker with 50% back wages.

The High Court having not interfered with order of reinstatement and merely reducing the bsck wages to 25%, the Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: I. The Conciliation Officer pu7°rted to have condoned the delay. He could not do so. There is no dispute that the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 does not provide for any period of limitation. But it is now well :1ettled that the relief to which a workman would be entitled to in such a situation would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 71 [116-G; 117-AI Management ofSudamdih Colliery ofMis. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd v. Their Workman represented by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, JT (2006) UTIRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPRN. v. M. C. JOSHI [S. B. SINHA, l] 115 I SC 411, relied on. • 2. 1.

Even assuming that the provisions ofSection 6N ofthe UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were contravened, it is now well-settled by reason of catena ofdecisions of this Court that the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would not be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to do so. For the said purpose, several factors are required to be taken into consideration, one ofthem being as to whether such an appointment had been made in terms of the statutory rules. Delay in raising an industrial dispute is also a relevant fact. [Para 9] [117-C, D, El Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation v. Mamni, AIR (2006) SC 2427; North-Eastern Karnataka Rt. Corporation v. Ashappa, (2006) 5 SCC 137; V. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Man Singh, (2006) 7 SCC 752 and Secretary, State ofKarnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. , [2006) 4 SCC I, relied on. 2. 2. In the instant case, the respondent was engaged as a daily wager for a short period from 1. 8. 1989 to 24. 11.

1991 and raised an industrial dispute after six years. In these circumstances interest of justice would be met if the impugned judgments are substituted by an award of compensation for a sum ) of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the respondent. [Paras 6 and 14) [116-G; 118-G-H; 119-AJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 921 of2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 2. 9. 2005 ofthe High Court of Uttranchal at Nainital in WP No. 914/2003(M/S). Rachana Srivastava for the Appellant. Rachana Joshi Issar, Bij Rajesh and Kapil Saxena for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Appellant (Corporation) herein is a Corporation incorporated under U. P. Forest Development Corporation Act. It is a successor of the UP Forest Corporation. It engages seasonal workers as and when any requirement arises therefor. Respondent was employed as a daily wager by the Corporation on or about 1. 8. 1989. His services were terminated on 24. 11.

1991. He allegedly completed_240 days' of continuous work in a period oftwelve months preceding ... the order of termination. He did not raise any industrial dispute for a long time. He approached the Conciliation Officer on or about 2. 9. 1996 i. e after a period of about 6 years. Conciliation effort between the: parties having failed, a reference was made by the State of Uttranchal for adjudication of the following dispute to the Labour Court. "Whether dispensation with the services of Shri Mohan Chand fo~hi son of Sh. N. B. Joshi, Field Assistant w. e. f. 24. 11. 1991 by the employer is valid and/or legal? If not, what benefit/damages along with other b . ~ would have resulted in rejection of his claim for back wages for the period during which the workman remains absent as has been held by this Court in Gurmail Singh v. Principal, Govt. College ofEducation. But the discretionary relief, in our opinion, must be granted upon taking into consideration all attending circumstances.

The appellant is a statutory corporation Keeping in view the fact that the respondent was appointed on a temporary basis, it was unlikely that he remained unemployed for such a long time. In any event, it would be wholly unjust at this distance oftime. i. e. after a period of more than 30 years, to direct reinstatement of the respondent in service. Unfortunately, the Labour Court or the High Court did no consider these aspects of the matter. 8. Keeping in view the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that instead and in place of the direction for reinstatement of the respondent together with back wages from 1986, interest ofjustice would be subserved ifthe appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to him. Similar orders, we may place on record, have been passed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. .. Ghyan Chand, State of MP v. Arjunlal Rajak, Nagar Mahapalika (now Municipal Corporation) v. State of U. P.

, and Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni. " 12. The unreported decision of this Court in Regional Manager, U. P. S. R. T. C. & Anr. v. Kamal Kumar (supra) whereupon, Ms. Issar had placed strong reliance is not an authority for the proposition that in each and every case an order of reinstatement is required to be passed. The fact of the said matter is not known. Furthermore it was passed in a Review Petition. It appears that one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether services of a daily wager should be regularized or not and in that situation, while directing that the concerned workman to be reinstated only as a daily wager but case ofthe workman for regularization was directed to be considered in terms of a purported scheme existing in this behalf. 13. The legal position has since undergone a change in the light of a Constitution Bench decision- of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors.

, [2006] 4 SCC I wherein this Court held that 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is under a constitutional obligation to comply with the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. We are therefore, ofthe opinion that keeping in view the nature and period of services rendered by the respondent herein as also the period during which he had worked and the fact that he had raised an industrial UITRANCHAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPRN. r. M. C. JOSHI [S. B. SINHA, J. ] 119 dispute after six years, interest of justice would be met if the impugned A - ,. _! judgments are substituted by an award of compensation for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the respondent. 15. We direct accordingly. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. B 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall however, be no order as to costs. RP. Appeal partly allowed.