AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Sahai, J.—We have head Mr D.R. Dave, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr S.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
The Respondent was appointed as Senior Accountant with effect from 15.3.1990. The Respondent went on leave with effect from 8.9.1990 upto 25.9.1990. On 26.9.1990, the Respondent tendered his resignation to the Appellant which was accepted on the same date and the Respondent was relieved from the service. Thereafter the Respondent raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court allowed the Reference (LCA) No. 221/1991 directing reinstatement of the Respondent with continuity in service with 50% backwages. The Appellant challenged the award of the Labour Court by means of Special Civil Application No. 11868 of 2003 which has been partly allowed. So far as the backwages are concerned, the same had been quashed but reinstatement with continuity in service has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the Appellant''s establishment was closed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the Respondent had worked only for a period of six months and he has not been completed 240 days of service in the last preceding year, therefore, the Labour Court could not have directed reinstatement of the Respondent in service with continuity in service and backwages. As per the appointment letter dated 14.05.1990, services of the Respondent could be terminated by giving three months'' notice.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged that the Respondent had not tendered his resignation. The Labour Court did not accept the question of resignation on the ground that the Appellant had not produced the original resignation.
If there was no resignation, even then the Respondent was required to work for a period of 240 days to claim the benefit of reinstatement in service. From the records, we do not find that any finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that the Respondent has worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year or in the last preceding year.
It has been held by the Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and Others Vs. Abdul Kareem, that a workman is not entitled to any consequential relief of reinstatement as a matter of course. In our opinion, since the Respondent had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding year, he is not entitled for any reinstatement in service. Moreover, the Appellant establishment had been closed.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge had committed error in directing reinstatement with 50% backwages to the Respondent, therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court dated 31.1.2002 and the learned Single Judge dated 26.8.2010 cannot be maintained.
The Appellant was ready to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the Respondent which has already been deposited by the Appellant in the Registry of this Court as directed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14.2.2011. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the amount of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- be paid to the Respondent instead of reinstatement in service. The Respondent shall accept the amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards the full and final settlement of his claim.
In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Labour Court on 31.1.2002 in Reference (LCA) No. 221 of 1991 and the order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11868 of 2003 so far it directs reinstatement in service with continuity of service is set aside.
We further direct that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid by the Registry to the Respondent within a period of two weeks from today towards full and final settlement of his claim.