KRISHAN SINGHversusEXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, ROHTAK

                        [2010] 3 S.C.R. 344


A                      KRISHAN SINGH
                              v.
           EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE
         AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD, ROHTAK
                         (HARYANA)
B              (Civil Appeal No. 2335 of 2010)
                         MARCH 12, 2010
         [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

c       Industrial Disputes Act, 1956:
        ss. 25F, 11-A - Termination without notice - Labour Court
   held that termination was illegal and directed reinstatement
   with 50% back wages - High Court set aside award of Labour
   Court and instead directed employer to pay compensation of
D Rs.50,0001- to the workman - Justification of - Held: Not
  justified - Labour Court took into consideration evidence on
  record and settled law while passing award - The decision of
  High Court had no basis.
E      Appellant was working as a daily wager under
   respondent from 1.6.1988. His services were dispensed
  with in December, 1993. He served notice on respondent
  but did not receive response. State Government referred
  the dispute to Labour Court. The Labour Court passed
  an award holding that the appellant had admittedly
F completed 267 days from 01.06.1988 to 30.04.1989 and his
  services were terminated without any notice and in
  violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act
  and, therefore he was entitled to be re-instated in his
  previous post with continuity of service and 50% back
G wages from the date of demand notice, i.e. 30.12.1997.
  Respondent filed writ petition before High Court. High
  Court allowed the same and directed the respondent to
  pay compensation of R:;.50,0001- to the appellant. Hence
  the appeal.
H                           344
KRISHAN SINGH v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANASTATE 345
          AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD

     Allowing the appeal, the Court                               A

     HELD: 1. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act
clearly provides that where an industrial dispute relating
to the discharge or disrr.:s~:il of a workman has been
referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal         8
for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication
proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order
of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its
award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and          C
direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and
conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief
to the workman including the award cf any lesser
punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the
circumstances of the case may require. Wide discretion
is, therefore, vested in the Labour Court while                   0
adjudicating an industrial dispute relating to discharge or
dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has
exercised its jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances
of the case to direct re-instatement of a workman with
50% back wages taking into consideration the pleadings
                                                                  E.,
of the parties and the evidence on record, the High Court
in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India should not interfere with the same,
except on well-settled principles laid down for a writ of
certiorari against an order passed by a Court or a                F
Tribunal. [Para 8] [350-D-H; 351-A]

     Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula & Anr.
(2008) 1 SCC 575; Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr.
v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 261, held inapplicable.        G

     2. In the present case, the respondent had not taken
any stand before the Labour Court in his objections that
the post in which the workman was working was not
sanctioned or that his engagement was contrary to
statutory rules or that he was employed elsewhere or that         H
    346      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A there was no :vacancy. In the absence of any pleadings,
  eyidence or findings on any of these aspects, the· High
  Court should not have modified the Award of the Labour
  Court directing re-instatement of the appellant with 50%
  back wages and instead directing paym(!nt of
B compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant. [Para 11)
  [352-A-C]

         Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) &
    Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, distinguished.

c       Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing
    Corporation JT 2010 (1) SC 598, referred to.

                           Case Law Reference:
          (2008) 1 sec 575         held inapplicable    Para 4
D
          (2008) 4 sec 251         held inapplicable    Para 4
          (2006) 4 sec 1           distinguished        Para 5
          JT 2010 (1) SC 598       referred to          Para 7
E       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2335 of 2010.

         From the Judgment & Order dated 9.12.2008 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 5257
F   of 2007.

          Shekhar Prit Jha for the Appellant.

        Randhir Badhram, B.S. Sharma, P.D. Sharma for the
    Respondent.
G
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.


H
KRISHAN SINGH v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE 34 7
  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD [AK. PATNAIK, J.]

      2. The appellant worked as a daily wager under the A
respondent from 01.06.1988. His services were dispensed with
 in December, 1993. He served a notice of demand dated
 30.12.1997 on the respondent contending that his services
 were terminated orally without complying with the mandatory
 provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947     s
 (for short "the Act") and that he may be re-instated in service
with full)>ack wages from the date of illegal termination and he
 may be"'regularized according to Government policy. The
 respondent did not respond to the demand made by the
 appellant and by order dated 23.07.1999, the State                 c
 Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act
to the Labour Court. The appellant and the respondent filed their
claim-statement and the objection respectively before the
Labour Court, Rohtak, and led evidence in support of their
respective cases. Thereafter, the Labour Court passed the
                                                                    0
Award dated 18.07.2006 holding that the appellant had
admittedly cor:npleted 267 days from 01.06.1988 to 30.04.1989
and his services were terminated without any notice or notice
pay and without payment of retrenchment compensation and
the termination was, therefore, in violation of Section .25F of the
Act and the appellant was entitled to be re-instated in his E
previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages
from the date of demand notice, i.e. 30.12.1997.

       3. The respondent challenged the Award of the Labour
 Court before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a writ F
 petition registered as C.W.P. No.5257 of 2007 and by order
dated 09.12.2008, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set
aside the Award dated 18.07.2006 of the Labour Court and
directed the respondent instead to pay compensation of
Rs.50,000/- to the appellant within a period of four months. G
Aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2008 of the High Court,
the appellant has filed this appeal.

    4. Shri Shekhar Prit Jha, learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted that the High Court has relied on the decisions of this   H
    348      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   Court in Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula &
    Anr. [(2008) 1 SCC 575] and Ghaziabad bevelopment
    Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. [(2008) 4 SCC 261]
    for setting aside the Award of the Labour Court. He submitted
    that in Maf)boob Deepak's case, the workman was removed
B   for financial irregularities, but the appellant in the present case
    was not removed for financial irregularities. He submitted that
    Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar &
    Anr. (supra) was not a case of violation of Section 25F of the
    Act as in the present case. He submitted that the two decisions
C   on which the High Court has relied upon to set aside the Award
    of the Labour Court therefore do not apply to the facts of the
    present case. He submitted that it is now well-settled that if pre-
    conditions for retrenchment of a workman who has worked for
    more than a year stipulated in Section 25F of the Act are not
    complied with, the termination of the service of the workman is
0
    illegal. He submitted that the Labour Court having found that
    these pre-conditions had not been complied with in the case
    had rightly directed re-instatement of the appellant with 50%
    back wages.

E        5. Shri Randhir Badhram, the learned counsel for the
    respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court
    has rightly set aside the Award of the Labour Court relying on
    the decisions of this Court in Ghaziabad Development
    Authority and Another v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. (supra) and
F   Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula & Anr.
    (supra). He also relied on Secretary, State of Kamataka & Ors.
    v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] in support of his
    submission that this is not a fit case where the appellant could
    be regularized in service.
G
         6. The only question that we have to decide in this case is
    whether the High Court was right in setting aside the Award
    dated 18.07.2006 of the Labour Court directing reinstatement
    of the appellant with 50% back wages and directing instead
    payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant. We
H
KRISHAN SINGH v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE 349
  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD [AK. PATNAIK, J.]

find that the dispute that was referred to by the State             A
 Government under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court
was: "whether the termination of the services of the appellant
was justified and if not, to what relief he was entitled to?" As
 per the claim-statement filed by the appellant before the Labour
 Court, he was appointed by the respondent as a daily wager         B
 against a regular post on 01.06.1988 under the Junior Engineer
at Meham and the appellant worked there for different periods
 until the respondent terminated his services in December, 1993
without any notice and without complying with the provisions of
 Section 25F of. the Act. The respondent in its objections did      c
 not take a plea that the engagement of the appellant was either
against a post which was not sanctioned or contrary to the
statutory rules and admitted in the objections that the services
of the appellant. were engaged for different periods during 1988-
1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1992-1993. The respondent            0
also furnished a statement of the works in which the appellant
was engaged during the years 1988-1989 and 1989-1990,
which was marked as Exb. MW-1. Taking into consideration
Exb. MW-1, the Labour Court held that the appellant has
completed 267 days from 1.6.1988 to 30.4.1989 and without           E
any notice or notice pay and without retrenchment
compensation. In the relief portion of the Award, the Labour
Court held that as the services of the appellant had been
terminated illegally, he was entitled to be re-instated in his
previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages
from the date of demand notice, i.e. 31.12.1997.                    F

     7. In a recent judgment of this Court in Harjinder Singh v.
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation [JT 2010 (1) SC 598),
the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its Award directed re-
instatement of the workman with 50% back wages, but the G
Award of the Labour Court was modified by a learned Single
Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the writ petition
and this Court has held that the order of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court was liable to be set aside only on the
ground that while interfering with the Award of the Labour Court, H
      -
    350      $UPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   the learned Single Judge did not keep in view the parameters
    l~id down by this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the High
    Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution.
    Learned Brother G.S. Singhvi, J., in his opinion, has observed
    that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227
B   of th_r C_onstitution, the High Courts are duty bound to keep in
    mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative
    instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are
    required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in
    the preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained
c   fn Part IV of the Constitution including Articles 38, 39(a) to (e),
    43 and 43f'. thereof. Learned Brother Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
    agreeing with learned Brother G. S. Singhvi, J., has also
    observed that this Court has a duty to interpret statutes with
    social welfare benefits in such a way as to further the statutory
    goal and not to frustrate it.
0
           8. Section 11A of the Act clearly provides that where an
     industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a .
     workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or
     National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course Qf the
E adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or
     Natio~I Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order
     of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award,
    -oet aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-_
     instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if
F · any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman
     including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of
   ~discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may
     require. Wide discretion is, therefore, vested in the Labour Court
   ··w~ile adjudicating an industrial dispute relating to discharge or
G dismissal of a workman and if the Labour Court has exercised
   .its jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case to
    direct re-instatement of a workman with 50% back wages taking
     into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
     on record, the High Court in exercise of its power under Articles
H 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with
KRISHAN SINGH v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA STATE 351
  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD [A.k. PATNAIK, J.]

the same, except on well-settled principieS\Jaid down by this         A
Court for a writ of certiorari against an order passed by a Court
or a Tribunal.

     9. The High Court, however, has relied on the d~cision of
this Court in Mahboob De(!pak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula
                                                                      8
& Anr. (supra) and on reading of the aforesaid decision, we
find that this Court in the aforesaid decision has mentioned the
                            ~
following factors, which are relevant for determining whether an
                                                                -
award of re-instatement should or should not be passed:-

      (i)     whether in making the appointment, the statutory C
              rules, if any, had complied with;

      (ii)    the period he had worked;

      (iii)   whether there existed any vacancy; and
                                                                      D
      (iv)    whether he obtained some other employment on
              the date of termination or passing of the award."

      This Court further held in the aforesaid decision that in the
light of these principles the relief of re-instatement granted by     E
the Labour Court in that case was wholly unsustainable and has
accordingly directed payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way
of damages to the workman with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum.

      10. The High Court has a!so relied on the decision of this      F
Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok
Kumar & Anr. (supra) and on reading of the aforesaid decision
we find that the contention of the management before the
Labour Court was that the post, in which the workman was
working in that case, was not sanctioned after 31.03.1990 and         G
this was not disputed by the workman and this Court held that
if there did not exist any post, the Labour Court should not have
directed re-instatement of the workman in service.

     11. The aforesaid two decisions of this Court in Mahboob         H
    352      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajrau/a & Anr. (supra) and
    Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashqk Kumar &
    Anr. (supra) have no application to the facts in this case. In the
    present case, the respondent has not taken any stand before
    the Labour Court in his objections that the post in which the
B   workman was working was not sanctioned or that his
    engagement was contrary to statutory rules or that he was
    employed elsewhere or that there was no vacancy. In the
    absence of an:t pleadings, evidence or findings on any of these
    aspects, the High Court should not have modified the Award
C   of the Labour Court directing re-instatement of the appellant
    with 50% back wages and instead directed payment of
    compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant.

         12. The decision of this Court in Secretary, State of
    Kamataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors, (supra) cited by the
D   counsel for the respondent relates to regularization in public
    employment and has no relevance to an Award for re-
    instatement of a discharged workman passed by the Labour
    Court under Section 11A of the Act without. any direction for
    regularization of his services.
E
        13. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the
    impugned order dated 09.12.2008 of the High Court of Punjab
    and Haryana in C.W.P. No.5257 of 2007 and direct that the
    appellant will be re-instated as a daily wager with 50% back
F   wages forthwith. No costs.

    D.G.                                            Appeal allowed.