Holding

The termination was invalid under Section 25F, warranting reinstatement with continuity of service, but no back wages are payable due to the short, intermittent daily‑wage nature of the employment.

Summary

The respondent, Rudhan Singh, was employed on a daily‑wage, class IV basis by Haryana Roadways from 16 March 1988 to 28 February 1989 with intermittent breaks. His services were terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation and he later demanded reinstatement. The State Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which held that he had worked 264 days in a calendar year, making Section 25F applicable, and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50 % back wages. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge, and on appeal the Supreme Court upheld reinstatement but set aside the award of back wages, holding that the short, intermittent daily‑wage employment and ready availability of similar work precluded any back‑wage award. The Court also ruled that the appellant could not raise a new plea that the appointment was for a fixed period, and that a reference after a long lapse, while undesirable, did not invalidate the reinstatement order.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act to a worker who worked 264 days but not continuously for a full year on a daily‑wage basis
Whether back wages should be awarded to a class IV daily‑wage employee whose termination was without notice
Whether the appellant may raise a new plea on a fixed‑period contract at the appellate stage
The propriety of a reference under Section 10(1)(c) after a long lapse of time
The validity of raising a new plea before the Supreme Court under Article 136

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10(1)(c), s. 25B, s. 25F, s. 2(oo)(bb)

Subjects

Industrial Disputes ActSection 25Fback wagesreinstatementdaily‑wage employeetermination without noticereference under Section 10(1)(c)continuous servicefixed‑period contractSupreme Court appeal

Judgment

GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS A
v.
RUDHAN SINGH

WLY 14,2005

[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHURANDP.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] B

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
r
Section 25F-Termination of service in violation of S.25-Payment of
_back wages-Determining factors-Held: No rule that entire back wages C
should be awarded-Factors such as length of service and nature of
employment to be considered

Section 25F-Reinstatement of Respondent, a Class JV workman, by
Labour Court with continuity of service and 50% back wages-Validity of- D
Held: Respondent had worked for 264 days in one calendar year, hence,
S.25F was applicable-Since neither any notice was given nor wages in lieu
of the period of notice nor any retrenchment compensation was paid,
termination of respondent was invalid-Hence, reinstatement with continuity
of service upheld-But Respondent not entitled to 50% back wages since he
had only worked on daily wage basis and that too for a very short period E
ofless than a year which was not even continuous-A/so since he is technically
not trained and the type of work he was doing was easily available while
he was under termination.

Section lO(l)(c)-Reference before Labour Court-Held: Not to be
. made after lapse of long period as it causes prejudice both to the workman F
and the employer.

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-New plea-Plea not raised
..·before lower Courts cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in
appeal before Supreme Court.
G
Respondent worked on a class IV post with the appellant for a short
period of less than one year, with some breaks. Thereafter he was not given
any appointment. He raised demand for being reinstated before the
Conciliation Officer, but the conciliation efforts failed. Consequently, the State
569 H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Government made reference under Section IO(l)(c) of the Industrial Dispqtes
Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which held that the .
respondent had worked for 264 days in one calendar year and, therefore, the
termination of his service without complying with the requirements of Section
25-F of the Act was illegal as neither any notice nor salary in lieu thereof
B nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Regarding back wages
it was held that since the respondent was working on a class IV post and the
said type of work was easily available in the State, it cannot be held that the
respondent did not earn any amount during the period he was out of
employment Accordingly an award was passed directing reinstatement of the
respondent on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back
C wages. Writ petition challenging the award was dismissed by High Court.
Hence the present appeal.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
D insofar as it directs reinstatement with continuity of service is upheld but
the award regarding payment of 50% back wages is set aside. (579-E)

2. Plea raised by appellant that the respondent had been appointed for a
fixed period and his appointment came to an automatic end after the expiry of
the period and, therefore, it was not a case of retrenchment in view of Section
E 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, does not appear to have been pressed before the Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court nor the award shows that any evidence was led to
substantiate such a plea that the respondent had been engaged on contract
for a fixed period or his contractual employment had come to an end in
accordance with any stipulation contained therein in that behalf. This plea
F has also not been raised before the High Court and, therefore, it is not open
to the appellant to raise a new plea at this stage. (574-C-E)

3. The requirements of Section 25-F of the Act would be satisfied if a
workman has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months and it is not
necessary that he should have been in the service of employer for complete
G one year. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Lab9ur Court has recorded a finding
that the respondent has worked for 264 days and this finding has not been
challenged before the High Court. In this view of the matter the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act are clearly applicable and as neither any notice or
wages in lieu of the period of notice nor any retrenchment compensation was
paid to the respondent, his termination of service has to be held to be invalid.
H (576-D-E)
GENERAL MANAGER, HARVANAROADWAYSv. RUDHAN SINGH 571

Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR (1963) SC A
(1914) and Surendra Kumar Verma v. The Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Laqour Court, New Delhi, AIR (1981) SC 422, relied on.

4. Respondent served a demand notice praying for reinstatement in
service two and half years after his service had been terminated. The State
Government made reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court B
eight years after the termination. Normally, a reference should not be made
after lapse of a long period. A labour dispute should be resolved expeditiously
and there is no justification for the.State Government to sleep over the matter
and make a reference after a long period of time at its sweet will. It causes
prejudice both to the workman and also to the employer. It is not possible for C
an employer to retain all the documents for a long period and then to produce
evidence, whether oral or documentary, after years as the officers, who may
have dealt with the matter, might have left the establishment on account of
superannuation or any other reason. The employer is not at fault if the
reference is not made expeditiously by the State Government, but it is saddled
with an award directing payment of back wages without having taken any work D
from the concerned workman. The plight of the workman who is thrown out
of employment is equally bad as it is a question of survival for his family and
he should not be left in a state of uncertainty for a long period. [577-A-D}

5.1. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial
Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of E
Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors
like the manner and method of selection and appointment, i.e., whether after
proper a·dvertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the
employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special p
·qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced
in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important
factors, which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service,
which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has
rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully
terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the G
fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a
position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service
rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete
period, i.e., from the date of termination till the date of the award, which is
often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another important factor, H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. l S.C.R.

A which requires to be taken into consideration is the nature of employment A
regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or
intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a
calendar year. [577-E-H; 578-A]

5.2. The facts show that the respondent had not worked continuously in
B the establishment of the appellant He had worked for a very short period with
the appellant, which was less than one year. Even during this period there
were breaks in service and he had been given short term appointments on
daily wage basis in different capacities. A person appointed on daily wage basis
gets wages only for days on which he has performed work. Respondent is not
C a technically trained person, but was working on a class IV post. According
to the finding of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court plenty of work of
the same nature, which the respondent was doing, was available. In such
circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to payment of any back wages.
[579-C-D]

D Smt. Saran Kumar Gaur and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, JT
(1991) 3 SC 478; State of UP. and Anr. v. Atal Behari Shastri and Anr., JT
(1992) 5 523; Virender Kumar, General Manager, Northern Railways, New
Delhi v. Avinash Chandra Chadha and Ors, (1990] 3 SCC 472; Sur} it Ghosh
v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors,
E (1995] 2 SCC 474 and Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar, (1996] 7 SCC 83,
relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7501 of2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C.W.P.No. 6223 of2001.
F
Ajay Siwach, Pradeep Dahiya and T.V. George for the Appellant.

Anil Hooda, Kaushal Yadav, Ms. Shabana Saifi and Harinder Mohan
Singh for the Respondent.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.P. MATHUR, J. I.This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against
the judgment and order dated ·145.200·1 of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the
award oflndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak directing reinstatement
H of the respondent Rudhan Singh with continuity of service and 50% back
GENERALMANAGER,HARYANAROADWAYSv.RUDHANSINGH[G.P.MATHUR,J.] 573

wages was dismissed. A
2. The respondent Rudhan Singh was appointed in various capacities
on a class IV post with the appellant Haryana Roadways and he worked from
16.3.1988 to 28.2.1989 with some breaks. Thereafter, he was not given any
appointment. He raised a demand for being reinstated before the Conciliation
Officer, Rohtak on 24.8.1991. The conciliation efforts having failed the State B
Government exercising powers under Section IO(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act') made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Rohtak as to whether the termination of service of the
respondent is justified and valid, and, if not, to what relief he was entitled
under law.
c
3. In his claim statement the respondent pleaded that he was appointed
as Helper on 16.3.1988 on daily wage basis. His work and conduct was always
satisfactory but his services were terminated on 28.2.1989 without assigning
any reason. He further pleaded that neither any notice nor wages in lieu of
notice were paid to him and as he had completed 240 days of service in a D
calendar year, the termination of his service was in violation of Section 25-
F of the Act and, therefore, the same was liable to be set aside and he was
entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages; The
appellant (management) filed a written statement on the plea that the
respondent Rudhan Singh was initially appointed on daily wage basis for a
fixed period from 16.3.1988 up to 31.3.1988. Thereafter, he was appointed as E
Washing Boy, Helper and Water Carrier as per the needs of the Department.
According to the:appellant the appointment of the respondent was for a fixed
period which came to an automatic end and, therefore, it was not a case of
retrenchment in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and consequently
Section 25-F of the Act had no application to the facts of the case. The F
respondent filed a replication controverting the please taken in the written
statement and reasserting the contents of the claim statement. The parties
adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court held that the respondent had worked for 264 days
in one calendar year and, therefore, the termination of his service without
complying with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act was illegal as G
neither any notice nor salary in lieu thereof nor any retrenchment compensation
was paid to him. Regarding back wages it was held that the same can be
awarded to the workman keeping in view the actual loss suffered by him by
remaining out of employment. Since the respondent was working on a class
IV post and the said type of work was available in Haryana as large number H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A of labourers come from Eastern UP and Bihar for doing that kind of work, the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court concluded that it cannot be held that
the respondent did not earn any amount during the period he was out of
employment. It was thus held that the respondent was entitled to 50% back
wages. Accordingly an award was passed on 26.5.2000 directing reinstatement
of the respondent on his previous post with continuity of service and 50%
B back wages. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the award of the
Industrial Tribunal~cum-Labour Court before the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, which was dismissed on 14.5.2001.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent
C had been appointed for .a fixed period and his appointment came to an
automatic end after the expiry of the period and, therefore, it was not a case
of retrenchment in view of Section 2(oo )(bb) of the Act. It is true that in view
of the aforesaid provision the termination of service of a workman as a result
of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the
workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under
D a stipulation in that behalf contained therein would not amount to retrenchment
in view of Section 2(oo )(bb) of the Act. However, such a plea that had been
taken in the written statement does not appear to have been pressed before
the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court nor· the award shows that any
evidence was led to substantiate such a plea that the respondent had been
E engaged on contract for a fixed period or his contractual employment had
come to an end in accordance with any stipulation contained therein in that
behalf. This plea has also not been raised before the High Court and, therefore,
it is not open to the appellant to raise a new plea at this stage.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted--that according
F to the own case of the respondent he was appointed on 16.3.1988 and his
services were terminated on 28.2.1989 and thus he had not worked for one
year and consequently Section 25-F of the Act would not apply to his case.
In support of this submission reliance has been placed on Sur Enamel and
Stamping Works Ltd. v. The Workmen, AIR (1963) SC 1914, wherein it was
held that under Section 25-F of the Act only a workman, who has been in
G continuous service for not less than one year under an employer, is entitled
to its benefit. Before a workman can be considered to have completed one
year of continuous service in an industry it must be shown first that he was
employed for a period of not less than 12 calendar months and next that
during those 12 calendar months he had worked for not less than 240 days.
H It was further held that a workman, who has not at all been employed for a
GENERAL MANAGER, HARY ANA ROADWAYS v. RUDHAN SJNGH[G.P. MA THUR,J.] 575

period of i2 months, would not satisfy the requirements of Section 25-B of A
the Act and would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 25-F of the
Act. It is important to note that Section 25-B of the Act, which contains the
definition of 'continuous service' was amended by Act No. 36 of 1964 and
the relevant part thereof reads as under: -

"25-B. Definition of continuous service For the purpose of this B
Chapter,

(I) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period
if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service
which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave
or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or lock-out or a a C
cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the
workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning
of clause (I) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed
to be in continuous service under an employer D
(a) for a period of one year, ifthe workman, during a period of twelve
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the emplo~er
for not less than -
E
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case ofa workman employed
below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which F
calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer
for not less than -

(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below
ground in a mine; and

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
a·
Explanation. - ...................................................................................... (omitted
as not relevant for the present case)"

This amended provision ha<> been considered in Surendra Kumar Verma v.
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP". I S.C.R.

A AIR (1981) SC 422, where after noticing the ratio of Sur Enamel and Stamping
Works Ltd. v. The Workmen (supra), it was held as under: -

"Act 36of1964 has drastically changed the position. S. 2(eee) has
been repealed and S. 25-B(2) now begins with the clause "where a
workman is not in continuous se_rvice ...... for a period of one year".
B These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly
designed to provide that a workman who has actually worked under
the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve
months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a
period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such
continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has
c worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months; it is not necessary that
he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole
year.......... "

In view of this authoritative pronouncement the requirements of Section 25-
D F of the Act would be satisfied if a workman has worked for 240 days in a
period of 12 months and it is not necessary that he should have been in the
service of employer for complete one year. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court has recorded a finding that the respondent has worked for 264
days and this finding has not been challenged before the High Court. In this
view of the matter the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are clearly
E · applicable and as neither any notice or wages in lieu of the period of notiCe
nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to the respondent, his termination
of service has to be· held to be invalid.
' . ' -
6. The next question, which requires consideration is whether. the
F respomient is entitled to any back wages. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court awarded 50% back wages on the ground that in Rohtak District of State
of Haryana work of the nature, which was being done by the respondent, is
available in plenty as a large work force comes from Eastern UP and Bihar for·
doing such kind of work. However, a general observation has been made that
keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it will be proper to
G award 50% back wages. The High Court has also not given any reason for
upholding this part of the award.

7. In our opinion certain factors, which are relevant for forming an
opinion regarding award of back wages, have been completely ignored and,
therefore, the award on this point is vitiated. The list of dates given in the
H Special Leave Petition, which have not been controverted, show that though
GENERALMANAGER,HARYANAROADWAYSv.RUDHANSINGH[G.P.MATHUR,J.] 577

according to the own case of the respondent his services had been terminated A
on 18.2J989, yet he served a demand notice praying for reinstatement in
. service after two and half years on 24.8.1991. The State Government made
reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in the year 1997, which
means eight years after the_ termination of service. Normally, a reference
should not be made after lapse of a long period. A labour dispute should be B
resolved expeditiously and there is no justification for the State Government
to sleep over the matter and make a reference after a long period of time at
its sweet will. It causes prejudice both to the workman and also to the
employer. It is not possible for an employer to retain all the documents for
. a long period and then to produce evidence, whether oral or documentary,
after years as the officers, who may have dealt with the matter, might have C
left the establishment on account of superannuation or any other reason. The
employer is not at fault if the reference is not made expeditiously by the State
,, Government, but it is saddled with an award directing payment of back wages
I
without having taken any work from the concerned workman. The plight of
the workman who is thrown out of employment is equally bad as it is a D .
question of survival for his family and he should not be left in a state of
uncertainty for a long period.

8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial
Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of
Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded: A host of E
i factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment, i.e., whether
after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the
. employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short
term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification
required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking F
a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors;
which has to be taken into consideration, is the length ~f service, which the
workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a
considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he
may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at his
age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to G
get another employment. However, where the !Otal length of service rendered
by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period,
i.e., from the date of terminat.ion till the date of the award, which our experience
.shows is often quite large, would be wltolly inappropriate. Another important
factor, which requires to be taken into consideration is the nature of H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A employment. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared
to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days
in a calendar year.

9. The written statement filed by the respondent shows that between
16.3.1988 to 31.10.1988 he had been given short term appointments as Helper,
B Wash Boy and Water Carrier with breaks of two days and seven days
respectively on two occasions. After 31.l 0.1988 he was employed as Helper
on 8.1.1989 after a gap of more than two months. This appointment was only
up to 31.1.1989 and thereafter he was given fresh appointment on 7.2.1989,
which came to an end on 28.2.1989. These facts show that the respondent had
C not worked continuously from 16.3.1988 to 28.2.1989 in the establishment of
the appellant. A person appointed on daily wage basis gets wages only for
days on which he has performed work.

10. In Smt. Saran Kumar Gauf and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ( '
Ors., JT (1991) 3 SC 478, this Court observed that when work is not done
D remuneration is not to be paid and accordingly did not make any direction
for award of past salary. In State of U.P. and Anr. v. Atal Behari Shastri and
Anr., JT (1992) 5 523, a termination order passed on l~.7.1970 terminating the
services of a Licence Inspector was finally quashed by the High Court in a
writ petition on 27.l l.1991 and a direction was issued to pay the entire back
E salary from the date of termination till the date of his attaining superannuation.
This Court, in absence of a clear finding that the employee was not gainfully
employed during the relevant period, set aside the order of the High Court
directing payment of entire back salary and substituted it by payment of a
lumpsum amount ofRs.25,000. In Virender Kumar, General Manager, Northern
Railways, New Delhi v. Avinash Chandra Chadha and Ors., [1990) 3 SCC 472, ;
F there was a dispute regarding seniority and promotion to a higher post. This
Court did not make any direction for payment of higher salary for the past
period on the principle 'n() work no pay' as the respondents had actually not
worked on the higher post to which they were entitled to be promoted. In
Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank
G and Ors., [1995) 2 sec 414, the appellant (Assistant Manager in the Bank)
was dismissed from service on 28.5.1985, but his appeal was allowed by this
Court on 6.2.1995 as his dismissal order was found to be suffering from an
inherent defect. His claim for arrears of salary for the past period came to
about Rs.20 lakhs but this Court observed that a huge amount cannot be paid
to anyone for doing no work and accordingly directed that a compensation
H amount of Rs.50,000 be paid to him in lieu of his claim for arrears of salary.
GENEllALMANAGER,HARYANAROAbWAYSv.RUDHANSINGH[G.P.MATHUR,J.] 579

In Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar, [ 1996] 7 SCC 83, the appellants were A
employed as daily wage employees in Water and Land Management Institute
of the Irrigation Department of Government of Bihar and they were working
on the posts of steno-typists, typists, machine operators and peons, etc. This
Court allowed the appeal of the workmen and dfrected reinstatement but
specifically held that they would not be entitled to any past salary. These B
authorities show that an order for payment of back wages should not be
passed in a mechanical manner but host of factors are to be taken into
consideration before passing any order for award of back wages.

11. In the case in hand the respondent had worked for a very short
period with the appellant, which was less than one year. Even during this C
period there were breaks in service and he had been given short term
appointments on daily wage basis in different capacities. The respondent is
not a technically trained person, but was working on a class IV post. According
to the finding of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court plenty of work of
the same nature, which the respondent was doing, was available in the
District of Rohtak. In such circumstances we are of the opinion that the D
respondent is not entitled to payment of any back wages.

12. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed and the award of the
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court insofar as it directs reinstatement with
continuity of service is upheld but the award regarding payment of 50% back
wages is set aside. E
13. No costs.

B.B.B. Appeal partly allowed.