2007 (4) TMI 620 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in the aforementioned fact situation, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was justified in directing reinstatement of the respondent with full back-wages and continuity of service? Held that - Respondent worked for a very short period. He only worked, as noticed hereinbefore, in 1994-95. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, therefore, in our opinion committed an illegality, while passing an award in the year 2003, directing the reinstatement of the respondent with full back-wages. Although we are of the opinion that the respondent was not entitled to any relief, whatsoever, we direct the appellant to pay him a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of termination of services of a daily-wager.
2. Interpretation of Section 25F and Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Determining whether two establishments are separate for the purpose of continuity of service.
4. Consideration of offers of appointment in different establishments.
5. Application of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in granting relief.
6. Entitlement to reinstatement with full back-wages based on the fact situation.

Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the termination of services of a daily-wager and the subsequent industrial dispute raised regarding the validity of the termination. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court directed the respondent's reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service based on the interpretation of Section 25F and Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The key issue was whether the two Sub-Divisions where the respondent worked should be considered separate establishments for the purpose of calculating continuity of service. The Court noted that the respondent did not provide his offers of appointment from the two Sub-Divisions, which could have indicated separate and distinct establishments. The failure of the Tribunal to address this crucial question was highlighted, emphasizing the importance of determining distinct establishments based on cadre strength and appointment authority.

The judgment also referenced a previous case to support the argument that working in different establishments, even under the same employer, does not necessarily constitute continuous service. The Court emphasized that the concept of continuous service cannot be applied when a workman moves between different establishments with varying administrative setups and projects. Furthermore, the discretionary power under Section 11A of the Act was discussed, stating that reinstatement with full back-wages should not be granted automatically and depends on various factors, including compliance with statutory provisions.

In analyzing the specific case, the Court found that the respondent had worked for a short period in 1994-95, and the award of reinstatement with full back-wages in 2003 was deemed illegal. Despite determining that the respondent was not entitled to any relief, the Court ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.25,000 as a settlement. The appeal was allowed to this extent, with no costs awarded in the circumstances of the case. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles surrounding continuity of service, interpretation of statutory provisions, and the discretionary nature of granting relief in industrial disputes.