9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 1099 - SC - Indian LawsWhether Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court correct whereby he modified the award passed by the Labour Court Gurdaspur (for short the Labour Court ) in Reference No.43 of 1996 and directed that in lieu of reinstatement with 50% back wages the appellant herein shall be paid Rs.87, 582/- by way of compensation? Held that - The approach of the courts must be compatible with the constitutional philosophy of which the Directive Principles of State Policy constitute an integral part and justice due to the workman should not be denied by entertaining the specious and untenable grounds put forward by the employer - public or private. Appeal allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court is restored.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of retrenchment under Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Jurisdictional error and scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 4. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding initial appointment. 5. Social justice and the interpretation of social welfare legislations. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Retrenchment under Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The Labour Court found that the appellant's retrenchment violated Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates the principle of "last come, first go." The Labour Court noted that persons junior to the appellant were retained in service, and there was no evidence that the appellant was appointed for a specific period or job. The High Court agreed with this finding but substituted the award of reinstatement with compensation, which the Supreme Court found unjustified. 2. Applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The corporation argued that the appellant's termination was covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, which excludes certain terminations from the definition of retrenchment. The High Court rejected this argument, agreeing with the Labour Court that the work for which the appellant was engaged was still continuing. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the High Court had not found any jurisdictional error in the Labour Court's award. 3. Jurisdictional Error and Scope of Judicial Review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court did not keep in view the parameters laid down for exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. The High Court unjustifiably interfered with the Labour Court's award by assuming the appellant's initial appointment was illegal without any supporting evidence or pleadings. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, to delineate the limits of judicial review. 4. Compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution Regarding Initial Appointment: The High Court's decision to set aside the award of reinstatement was based on the assumption that the appellant's initial appointment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court found this assumption unfounded, as the corporation had not raised this issue before the Labour Court, nor was there any evidence to support it. The Supreme Court restored the Labour Court's award, emphasizing that the High Court should not have entertained this new plea. 5. Social Justice and the Interpretation of Social Welfare Legislations: The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of interpreting social welfare legislations in line with the goals set out in the Constitution's Preamble and Part IV. The Court criticized the recent judicial trend of denying relief to workers based on technicalities and emphasized the need for courts to protect the rights of weaker sections of society. The judgment underscored that the judiciary has a duty to promote social justice and ensure that workers receive their due rights. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with 50% back wages. The Court also awarded the appellant costs of Rs.25,000/-. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding social justice and protecting workers' rights against unjust retrenchment.
|
