AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Since WP Nos. 2900/1996, 932/2002, 1000/2002, 6235/2005 and WP (L) Nos. 1030/2010, 7863/2011, 7892/2011, 7893/2011, 7894/2011 & 7895/2011 involve the same facts and grounds and, as such, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. The respondent employees were engaged as daily wagers and their services were terminated by orders dated 16-10-1991, 16-2-2000, 16-2-2000, year 1999, 30-4-2000, year 2000, year 2000, 30-4-2000, 30-4-2000 & 25-1-2000, respectively. There against the respondent employees union approached the Industrial Court wherein three issues were framed, which read as under:
The Court below, after considering all the aspects of the matter and after hearing the respective parties held that the employees were members of the workers union, the employees have completed 240 days service in the preceding year and it was case of retrenchment compensation as prescribed u/s 25F of the Industrial Deputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act, 1974") was not paid, therefore, the employees were held as entitled to reinstatement without back wages in some cases and with back wages in some other cases vide orders dated 22-7-1995, 14-2-2002, 14-2-2002, 5-6-2008, 24-8-2011, 24-8-2011, 24-8-2011, 24-8-2011, & 20-7-2011, respectively.
At the juncture learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly and fairly submit that the identical issue has already been considered and decided by the Court in State of Chhattisgarh & Another v. Dhaniram, WP (L) No. 3034 of 2009 (decided on 2-2-2011), and other connected writ petitions and instead of reinstatement, monetary compensation was awarded. The said decision of this Court has been confirmed by the Division Bench in Brij Nandan Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another, WA No. 50 of 2011 (decided on 17-2-2011) and other connected writ appeals. There against, appeals leave petition, being SLP (c) No. 15761 of 2011 (Brij Nandan Chandra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.) was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 8-7-2011. Thus these petitions may be disposed of in terms of Dhaniram (Supra).
Recently, the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh, observed as under :
This court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.
In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as ''daily wagers'' and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court as also the award dated 27-5-2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. We direct the appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs. 2 Lakh to each of the respondents in full and final settlement of their claim, within six weeks from today. In case the payment is not made within the aforementioned stipulated time, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
In view of above fact and circumstances of the case, wherein the respondent employee were terminated on 16-10-1991, 16-2-2000, 16-2-2000, year 1999, 30-4-2000, year 2000, 30-4-2000, 30-4-2000 & 25-1-2000, respectively and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, instead of reinstatement, monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. Thus, each respondent- employee is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. Such payment shall be made within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
It is made clear that the payment made to the respondent employees during pendency of these petitions under the provisions of section 17-B of the Act 1947 shall neither be adjusted against the payment nor shall be recovered from the respondent employees.
As an upshot, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.
Consequently, M, (W)P. No. 306/2002 filed in WP No. 932/2002 and M(W) P.No. 363/2002 filed in WP No. 1000/2002 stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.