INCHARGE OFFICER AND ANR.versusSHANKAR SHETTY

                   [20101 10 S.C.R. 773


             INCHARGE OFFICER AND ANR.                        A
                            V.
                    SHANKAR SHETTY
             (Civil Appeal No. 7213 of 2010)
                    AUGUST 31, 2010
                                                              B
         [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

     Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.25F - Daily wager
appointed in 1978 - Worked intermittently for 7 years -
Terminated from service in 1985 i.e. about 25 years back - C
Claim fpr re-instatement and back wages on account of
violation of s. 25 - Held: Order of re-instatement would not
automatically follow - Instead monetary compensation would
subserve the ends of justice - Compensation of Rs. 1, 00, 0001
- in lieu of re-instatement just and equitable - Equity - D
Compensation.

    The respondent was engaged as daily wager by the
appellants in 1978. He worked for about 7 years. In 1985,
he was terminated from service. He raised industrial          E
dispute challenging his termination on the ground that
the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act was not followed. The Labour Court held
that Section 25F of the Act was not attracted since the
workman failed to prove that he had worked
continuously for 240 days in the year preceding his           F
termination. Respondent filed writ petition before the High
Court. The High Court directed reinstatement of the
respondent into service but without back wages and
continuity of service. The employer filed the instant
appeal.                                                       G

    Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: The High Court erred in granting relief of
                           773                                H
    774      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was
  engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement
  continued for about 7 years intermittently upto
  September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In such a
  case, the relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and
B instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of
  justice. The compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of
  reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable.
  [Para 5] [778-C-E]

      Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing
C Board and Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 327; Senior Superintendent
  Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors
  2010(6) sec 773 - relied on.

       U. P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday
D Narain Pandey (2006)1 SCC 479; Uttaranchal Forest
  Development Corporation vs. M. C. Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353;
  State of M.P. & Ors. v. La/it Kumar Verma (2007)1 SCC 575;
  Madhya Pradesh Admn. v. Tribhuban (2007)9 SCC 748; Sita
  Ram & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute
E (2008) 5 SCC 75; Jaipur Development Authority v.
  Ramasahai & Anr. (2006)11 SCC 684; Ghaziabad
  Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. (2008)
  4 SCC 261; Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula
  & Anr. (2008)1 SCC 575 - referred to.
F                      Case Law Reference:
          (2009)15 sec 327    relied on             Para 2, 5
          (2006)1 sec 479     referred to           Para 2

G         (2001) 9 sec 353     referred to          Para 2
          (2001)1 sec 575      referred to          Para 2
          (2001) 9 sec 148     referred to          Para 2

          (2008) 5 sec 75      referred to          Para 2
H
     INCHARGE OFFICER AND ANR. v. SHANKAR                  775
                   SH ETTY
      (2006)11 SCC 684         referred to           Para 2        A

      (2008) 4 SCC 261         referred to           Para 2
      (2008) 1 sec 575         referred to           Para 2
      2010(6) sec 773          relied on             Para 3
                                                                   B
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7213 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 09.12.2004 of the High
Court of Bangalore in W.A. No. 7330 of 2001.                       c
    Sanjay R. Hegde, Ramesh Kr. Mishra, Krutin Joshi, Vikrant
Yadav for the Appellants.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                   D
      R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. The only question to be considered in this appeal by
special leave is with regard to the relief of reinstatement
granted to the respondent by the Single Judge of the High Court
bf Karnataka in his judgment and order dated August 13, 2001       E
and affirmed by the Division Bench vide its judgment and order
dated December 9, 2004 in-the writ appeal. Should an order
of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the
engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in
violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947     F
(for short 'ID Act')? The course of decisions of this Court in
recent years has been uniform on the above question. In the
case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing
Board and Anr. 1 , delivering the judgment of this Court, one of
us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this   G
Court - namely, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
v. Uday Narain Pandey 2; Uttranchal Forest Development

1.   (2009) 15 sec 327.
2.   (2006) 1 sec 479.                                             H
    776        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A Corporation vs. M. C. Joshi3; State of M.P. & Ors. v. La/it
  Kumar Verma 4 ; Madhya Pradesh Admn v. Tribhuban 5 ; Sita
  Ram & Ors. v. Motil Lal Nehru Farmers Training lnstitute 6 ;
  Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramasahai & Anr. 7;
  Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar &
B Anr. 8 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajrau/a &
  Anr. 9 and stated as follows:

          "It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in
          many decisions reflected the legal position that if the
          termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the
c         relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily
          follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in
          the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court
          has consistently taken the view that relief by way of
          reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may
D         be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even
          though the termination of an employee is in contravention
          of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of
          reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.

E         ***********

          It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in
          recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order
          of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F
          although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement
F         should not, however, be automatically passed. The award
          of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the
          workman has completed 240 days of work in a year

    3.   (2007) g sec 353.
G   4.   (2007) 1 sec 575.
    5.   (2007) g sec 748.
    6.   (2008) 5 sec 75.
    7.   (2006) 11 sec 684.
    8.   (2008) 4 sec 261.
H   9.   (2008) 1 sec 575.
    INCHARGE OFFICER AND ANR. v. SHANKAR                      777
           SHETTY [R.M. LODHA, J.]
    preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers    A
    has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead
    compensation has been awarded. This Court has
    distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a
    post and a permanent employee".

    3. Jagbir Singh 1 has been applied very recently in the case     B
of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v.
Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3815 of 2010)
decided on April 26, 2010 wherein this Court stated:

    "In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the   c
    workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years
    back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of
    reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to
    be justified and instead monetary compensation would
    subserve the ends of justice".                                   D
     4. Shankar Shetty - the respondent was initially engaged
as daily wager by the appellants in 1978. He worked for 57
days in that year. The respondent had also worked for 316'h
days in 1979, 335'h days in 1980, 242'h days in 1981, 33'h
days in 1982, 1O'h days in 1983, 103 days in 1984 and 50             E
days in 1985. According to him he was terminated from service
on September 6, 1985 without following the procedure
prescribed in Section 25 F of the ID Act . He raised industrial
dispute relating to his retrenchment which was referred for
adjudication to the Labour Court, Mysore but later on the            F
dispute was transferred to the Labour Court, Chickmagalur. The
Labour Court, Chickmagalur by its award on December 21,
1994 rejected the respondent's claim. The Labour Court held
that Section 25 F of the ID Act was not attracted since the
workman failed to prove that he had worked continuously for          G
240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination on
September 6, 1985. The respondent challenged the award
passed by the Labour Court by filing a writ petition before the
Karnataka High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court
overturned the finding of the Labour Court about non-                H
    778     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A applicability of Section 25 F and held that Section 25 F of the
  ID Act was attracted and the procedure provided therein having
  not been followed, the termination of respondent (petitioner
  therein) was illegal. The Single Judge, accordingly, vide his
  judgment and order dated August 13, 2001 directed
B reinstatement of the respondent into service but without back
  wages and continuity of service. The present appellants
  challenged the judgment and order of the Single Judge in writ
  appeal before Division Bench but without any success. On
  December 9, 2004, the writ appeal preferred by the present
c appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench.

        5. We think that if the principles stated in Jagbir Singh 1
  and the decisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in
  mind, it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief
  of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was
D engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement
  continued for about 7 years intermittently upto September 6,
  1985 i.e. about'25 years back. In a case such as the present
  one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be
  justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the
E ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the compensation
  of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) in lieu of reinstatement shall
  be appropriate, just and equitable. We order accordingly. Such
  payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which
  the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
F
         6. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Since the
    respondent has not chosen to appear despite service of notice,
    there will be no order a~ to costs.

    D.G.                                     Appeal partly allowed.