Holding

After a long lapse, reinstatement with back wages is not proper; instead a full and final settlement of Rs 2 lakh is ordered.

Summary

The workman was dismissed in 1992 and raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in 1994. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with back wages and a subsistence allowance, but the management was not allowed to lead evidence and initially failed to pay the allowance. The management challenged the award in a writ petition, which the High Court dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that, owing to the long passage of time, ordering reinstatement with back wages was not appropriate and the High Court's order was irreversible. However, considering the peculiar facts, the Court directed a full and final settlement of Rs 2 lakh to be paid to the workman within six months, with no further claims allowed. The appeal was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition can be set aside after a long delay.
Whether reinstatement with back wages is appropriate after a prolonged lapse of time.
Whether the management's denial of an opportunity to lead evidence renders the Labour Court award illegal.
Whether payment of the subsistence allowance after the closure of evidence is arbitrary.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10(1)(c), s. 2A

Subjects

labour lawindustrial disputereinstatementback wagessubsistence allowancedelayfull and final settlementSupreme Court

Judgment

~

j

A FAZIKA COOP. SUGAR MILLS
v.
JA TINDER KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR.

APRIL 25, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]

Labour Laws: ..
i

Dismissal from service-Management directed to pay subsistence
c allowance to workman on a Writ Petition by workman-Management did not
pay the same-Labour Court denied permission to management to lead
evidence-Ordered reinstatement with back wages-High Court upheld the
same-Challenge against-Held, on facts, after long passage of time, it is not
proper to direct reinstatement-High Court's order in law is irreversible-
D But in view ofpeculiar circumstances, management directed to pay Rs.2 lacs
to workman in full and final settlement.

The respondent-workman was dismissed from service and he raised
industrial dispute. In Writ Petition filed by workman, the High Court directed
the management to pay the subsistence allowance to the workman. As
E appellant-management did not pay the subsistence allowance, the Labour Court
decided in favour of workman and refused the permission to the management
to lead evidence. Thereafter they paid the subsistence allowance.

Aggrieved management filed writ petition before the High Court High
Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal.
F 1
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. One factor is clear that there was no date fixed for payment
but dates were fixed before the Labour Court in the proceedings. The payment
of subsistence allowance after the order of the Labour Court closing the
G evidence so far as the management is concerned cannot be termed as in any
x
manner arbitrary. However, the order of dismissal was passed in 1992 and
the industrial dispute was raised under s. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 on 11.5.1994 and a reference was made under Section IO(l)(c) of the
Act thereafter. (Para 5] (620-D, E, F]
H 618
FAZIKACOOP SUGARMILLSv.JATINDERKUMARGUPTA[PASAYAT,J.] 619

2. The management was required to give opportunity to the respondent A
to lead evidence on merits. Since the enquiry was allegedly not conducted in
fair and proper manner, opportunity was granted to the management to adduce
evidence. On the writ petition filed by the respondent-workman the High Court
had issued notice. After this long passage of time it would not be proper to
direct re-instatement and that too with back wages. It has been pointed out B
that the appellant is suffering huge amount of loss amounting to Rs-35 crores.
In the facts and circumstances of the case of High Court's order in law is
irreversible. But keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, in full and
~ final settlement of the claims of the respondent-workman a sum of rupees 2
lakhs is directed to be paid within a period of 6 months. The respondent-
workman shall not have any further claim and/or the appellant shall have no C
liability so far as against respondent-workman is concerned.
[Para 6] [620-F, G, H; 621-A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2144 of2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2004 of the Punjab & Haryana D
High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 1655 of2004.

S. Janani and Deepak Goel for the Appellant.

Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Amanpreet Singh Rabi, Kiran Suri and Devesh
Tripathi for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by
the appellant. In the writ petition challenge was to the award dated 10.12.2003 F
made by the Labour Court, Bhatinda, Punjab. By the said award the respondent
No. I-workman was directed to be re-instated in service with continuity of
service alongwith 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. Grievance
before the High Court was that the appellant was not granted opportunity to
lead evidence. It appears that in the writ petition No.14465 of 2001 the G
workman was directed to be paid the subsistence allowance. Since the
subsistence allowance was not paid the Labour Court decided in favour of
the respondent and the appellant was not granted permission to lead evidence.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the course adopted was
illegal. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman, however, supported the
orders stating that the order of the Labour Court for payment of subsistence H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A allowance was not illegal and, therefore, the High Court was justified in /
dismissing the writ petition.

3. A few details so far as the factual position is concerned need to be
noted.

B 4. By order dated 18.9.2001 passed in C.W.P.No. 14465 of2001 a Division
Bench of the High Court had directed the matter to be listed before a learned
Single Judge on 19 .2.2002. Meanwhile, it was ordered that the pleadings in
the case before the Labour Court were to be completed. It appears that the
subsistence allowance amounting to Rs.5291/- was paid by the appellant vide
demand draft dated 30.1.2002. But the Labour Court had closed the evidence
C of the management vide order dated 5.12.2001 on the ground that the order
dated 18.9.2001 passed by the High Court had not been complied with by that
date. Undisputedly, the amount of subsistence allowance was paid to the
workman after the evidence was closed by order dated 5.12.2001. The
management had not paid the subsistence allowance to the workman. He was
D not re-instated into service during the enquiry proceedings being conducted
by the Enquiry Officer. It is true that no date was fixed. The High Court was
of the view that looking at the conduct of the management no interference
with the award of the Labour Court was called for.

5. One factor is clear that there was no date fixed for payment but dates
E were fixed before the Labour Court in the proceedings. The payment of
subsistence allowance after the order of the Labour Court closing the evidence
so far as the management is concerned cannot be termed as in any manner
arbitrary. However, the order of dismissal was passed in 1992 and the industrial
dispute was raised under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
short the 'Act') on 11.5.1994 and a reference was made under Section lO(l)(c)of
F the Act thereafter.
6. There appears to be some confusion so far as factual position is
concerned. The management was required to give opportunity to the
respondent to lead evidence on merits. Since the enquiry was allegedly not
conducted in fair and proper manner opportunity was granted to the
G management to adduce evidence. On the writ petition filed by the respondent-
workman the High Court had issued notice. After this long passage of time
it would not be proper to direct re-instatement and that to.o with back wages.
It has been poin!ed out that the appellant is suffering huge amount of loss
amounting of Rs.35 crores. In the facts and circumstances of the case the
H High Court's order in law is irreversible. But keeping in view the peculiar facts
FAZIKACOOP.SUGARMILLS,..JATINDERKUMARGUPTA[PASAYAT,J.] 621
of the case we direct that in full and final settlement of the claims of the A
respondent-workman a sum of rupees 2 lakhs shall be paid within a period
of 6 months from today. The respondent-workman shall not have any further
claim and/or the appellant shall have no liability so far as against respondent-
workman is concerned.

7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to B
costs .

.r
.. IXJ. Appeal disposed of.