MINISTRY OF TEXTILEversusMURARI LAL GUPTA & ANR.

                    [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1235


                  MINISTRY OF TEXTILE                         A
                             V.
               MURARI LAL GUPTA & ANR.
              (Civil Appeal No. 2509 of 2008)
                      APRIL 7, 2008
                                                              B
    [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

      Labour Laws - Reference of Industrial dispute - Pursuant
to order of High Court in a writ petition - Tribunal directing
reinstatement with back wages - After passing of the award,   c
scheme under which the employee was employed, was .
abandoned - Implementation of award sought from High Court
                   •
-Allowed by Single Judge and also by Division Bench of High
Court - On appeal held: Direction of reinstatement and back
wages set aside - In the peculiar facts of the case, direction
                                                               0
issued to pay the employee Rs. 50, 0001- as full and final
settlement.
    Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 10 - Reference
under - Decision for - Held: It is within domain of the
Government to decide the worth of a case for reference -      E
Court should not direct reference to be made except in
exceptional cases.                                   ·
     Respondent, appointed as a 'Chowkidar' with the
appellant, filed a representation for regularization. It was
rejected on the ground that the respondent was over- F
aged. He, thereafter served a notice seeking his
reinstatement. He also filed applications seeking payment
of difference in salary and for overtime wages.
Conciliation proceedings failed. Application seeking
reference of industrial dispute was rejected. He G
approached High Court in writ petition. Pursuant to the
judgment of High court, reference of industrial dispute was
made to Industrial Court. Industrial Tribunal directed his
reinstatement with back wages. Thereafter, the scheme
                           1235                               H
    1236      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A   under which the respondent was appointed, was
    abandoned. Respondent-employee filed writ petition
    seeking implementation of the order of the Tribunal.
    Employer-appellant also filed writ petition. Single Judge
    of High court dismissed the writ petition of the employer
s   and allowed that of the employee. Employer filed writ
    appeal (LPA) against both the orders. One LPA was
    dismissed as withdrawn while the other was dismissed
    on merits. Hence the present appeal.
       Appellant contended that direction for reinstatement
C was not correct, and that writ petition wherein order
  directing reference was passed was belated.
           Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. Except in certain unexceptional cases
D courts should not direct reference to be made. It is within
  the domain of the Government to decide as to in which
  case reference is to be made and in which case reference
  is not to be done. The reference was apparently made on
  the ground that the High Court had directed a reference
E to be made. That was not factually correct. The High Court
  directed reconsideration of the matter and did not in fact
  direct reference to be made. [Para 4] (1238-G; 1239-A]
        2. In the peculiar facts of the case that the project
  has already been closed and that filing of the writ petition
F was belated, it is directed that the respondent be paid an
  amount of Rs.50,000/- in full and final settlement of his          r
  claim. The direction for reinstatement and/or back wages
  stands set aside. (Paras 4 and 7] (1239-A, B, F, G]
G        State of M.P and Ors. v Arjun!al Rajak 2006 (2) SCC
    711; Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar 2006(5)
    sec 173 - relied on.
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2509
    of 2008.
H
           MINISTRY OF TEXTILE v.' MURARI LAL GUPTA & ANR.            1237
                        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J)
     )
                From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.2005 of the High      A
           Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 1082/2004
                D.S. Mahr.a for the Appellant.
                Anitha Shenoy for the Respondents.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    B
      )<
                DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
                2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a 'Division
           Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal filed by
           the appellant. Challenge in the appeal was to the judgment and    c
           order d~ted 21.9.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge in
           Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4662 of 2002.
                         •      ••   I           •




                 3. Background facts as projected by the respondent in the
           Writ Petition filed by him before the High Court are essentially
                                                                            D
           as follows:
    r             Respondent was appointed as Chowkidar in Carpet
           Weaving Training Center, Bharatpur, Rajasthan on 24.8.1982.
           On 26.3.1985 respondent filed a representation for                ..•
           regularization. The same was rejected by order dated 20.5.1985 E
           as he was over aged. According to the appellant, respondent
           stopped attending his duties in the office from 6.12.1987 and
           served a notice seeking reinstatement on 30.5.1988. On
           3.6.1988 respondent filed L.A. No.201 of 1988 and202of1988
           for payment of difference in salary in the period from 24.8.1982 F
           to 5.12.1987 and for overtime wages for the same period. On
    ..,    5. 7 .1988 respondent'filed a statement of claim before
           Conciliation Officer (Central), New Delhi. The efforts for
           conciliation proceedings failed and on 30.6.1989 failure report
           was submitted to Ministry for Labour.                            G
                  Respondent filed a writ petition in 1993. By order dated

•          23.8.1995 respondent's writ petition was disposed of with a
           direction to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal
           notwithstanding the pendency of the matter filed by the
           respondent regarding minimum wages and overtime. The H

•
'
    1238     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A reference was rejected earlier by order dated 6.8.1990. The
  rejection was made on the ground that the m~tter was pending
  in Court. However, pursuant to the order of the High Court,
  reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
  Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). By award dated 9.2.2001 the
B Tribunal directed reinstatement with back wages. It is to be noted
  that the matter was decided ex-parte. In the year 2002, the
  scheme in which respondent claimed to have been appointed
  was abandoned by the Government of India. On 1.8.2002 the
  respondent filed writ petition No.4662 of 2002 for
  implementation of order of the Tribunal. On 17.10.2003 the
C appellant filed writ petition No.7707 of 2003 challe·riging the
  award. By order dated 21.9.2004, the writ petition filed by the
  appellant was dismissed while the writ petition filed by the
  respondent was allowed. The LPA was filed in respect of the
  order in writ petition No.7707 of 2003. LPA 26 of 2005 which
D was filed against the order in Writ Petition No.4662 of 2002.
  LPA No.26 of 2005 was dismissed as withdrawn and the other
  LPA was dismissed by the impugned order date.d 24.3.2005.
       The primary stand of the appellant is that the unit' has
E already been closed and, therefore, the direction for
  reinstatement could not have been given. In addition if the
  termination was in November, 1987 as claimed by the
  respondent, the writ petition filed was highly belated and no
  direction could have been given to refer the matter to the
  Industrial Tribunal.
F
         Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
    submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondents has been
    allowed and therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing
    the LPA.
G      4. Undisputedly the writ petition was filed after about five
  years. The High Court directed reconsideration of the matter
  and did not in fact direct reference to be made. Except in certain
  unexceptional cases courts should not direct reference to be
  made. It is within the domain of the Government to decide as to
H in which case reference is tG be made and in which case
         MINISTRY OF TEXTILE v. MURARI LAL GUPTA & ANR.                  1239
                      [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]
     )


         reference is not to be done. The reference was apparently made A
         on the ground that the High Court had directed a reference to
         be made. That was not factually correct. Be that as it may, writ
         petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the High Court.
         But the fact that the project has already been closed cannot be
         lost sight of. Also relevant is the belated filing of the writ petition. B
     A
               5. In State of M.P & Ors. v. Arjunlal Rajak [2006(2) SCC
         711] it was held as follows:
               "11. Keeping in view the fact that the services of the
               respondent were terminated on the ground that the c
               production unit in which he was working itself had been
               closed, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would
              .be subserved if a monetary compensation of Rs 10,000/
               - is granted to him. It, however, goes without sayirig that he
               would be entitled to the wages forthe period he had actually
                                                                              D
               worked pursuant to or in furtherance of the order of the
               Labour Court and as also of the High Court upon his
     '         reinstatement. The award of the Labour Court as also the
               judgment of the High Court are set aside."
               6: In Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar E
         .[2006(5) sec 173] it was held as follows:
              "22. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set agide the
              directions of the Labour Court and direct that in place of
              the respondent being reinstated with back wages, the
              appellant would pay monetary compensation to him,                  F
              quantified at Rs.50,000. We make no order as to costs."
               7. In the peculiar facts of the case we direct that the
         respondent be paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in full and final
         settlement of his claim. The direction for reinstatement and/or G
         back wages stands set aside.
1J            8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no
         order as to costs.
         K.K.T.                                     Appeal partly allowed.       H