2013 (2) TMI 101 - SC - Indian Laws

Award of reinstatement - termination of services quashed - appellant was engaged as daily coolie in Construction Department of the Corporation some time in 1989 and his services were terminated after two years in 1991 - Appellant contended that the courts below have erred in holding that the Labour Court ought not to have passed an award of reinstatement in a case where the appellants approached for conciliation about 8-10 years of the termination - Held that - It is submitted that while making the aforesaid observation the courts below failed to appreciate that the appellants were continuously making representation to the Respondent- Corporation and only on the basis of the assurance given by the Respondent Corporation the appellant had not taken any steps to enforce their right through the process of the court. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in appeal that the appellants were temporarily appointed on daily wages as and when work was available and they were not posted on regular basis against sanctioned post, thus no reason is find any reason and justification to interfere with the orders passed by the two courts. However, the direction for payment of Rs.10,000/- each to the appellants will not compensate the appellants. Hence, the appellants who approached for the conciliation after 8 to 10 years from the date of termination are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- each whereas one of the appellants namely Rajkumar Rohitlal who has approached the Conciliation Officer within 2 to 3 years shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment quashing award by Labour Court. Appellants employed on daily wages terminated after years of service. Delay in approaching Labour Commissioner. Quashing of award by Single Judge upheld by Division Bench. Appellants seek reinstatement. Appellants not appointed on regular vacant posts. Compensation awarded by Single Judge. Dispute referred to Labour Court.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court quashing the award passed by the Labour Court. The appellants were employed on daily wages or temporary basis and were terminated after varying periods of service. The dispute arose when the Labour Court held the terminations as illegal and directed reinstatement of the appellants. The Single Judge quashed the award, citing gross delay in approaching the Labour Commissioner for conciliation. The Single Judge directed the Respondent Corporation to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each appellant due to the delay in approaching the conciliation officer.

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing that the appellants were temporary workers engaged on daily wages without regular appointments to vacant posts. Referring to the precedent set by the Constitution Bench in a previous case, the Division Bench concluded that the workers were not entitled to reinstatement since they were not appointed through due selection process on regular vacant posts. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, highlighting the unexplained delay in approaching the conciliation officer and the lack of continuous efforts by the appellants for reinstatement.

During the Supreme Court hearing, the appellant's counsel argued against the lower courts' decision, claiming continuous representations made to the Respondent Corporation. However, the Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the lower courts that the appellants were not appointed on a regular basis against sanctioned posts, justifying the dismissal of the appeals. The Supreme Court modified the compensation awarded by the Single Judge, increasing it to Rs.50,000/- for appellants who approached for conciliation after 8 to 10 years and Rs.1,00,000/- for an appellant who approached within 2 to 3 years from the date of termination.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the temporary nature of the appellants' employment and the lack of regular appointments to sanctioned posts. The modification of compensation was based on the varying periods of delay in approaching the conciliation officer, ensuring fair compensation for each appellant based on the timing of their approach.