Holding

For temporary workers covered by Section 17‑B, the initial burden of proving continuous service of 240 days per year rests on the workmen, and the payments already made, including Rs 2,00,000 per respondent, constitute full and final settlement of all claims.

Summary

The respondents were engaged as temporary store watchmen on daily wages between 1986 and 1989 under a purely temporary engagement order that stipulated termination when the requirement ceased. After the stores were closed in 1990, the respondents were terminated and later obtained an award from the Labour Court directing reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. The Single Judge upheld reinstatement but limited back wages to 50% due to the long pendency, and the Division Bench dismissed the Board's writ appeal. The Supreme Court held that, for workers covered by Section 17‑B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the initial burden of proving continuous work for 240 days in a year lies on the workmen, and this burden cannot be shifted to the employer. However, because most respondents had reached superannuation, reinstatement was no longer feasible, and the Court declared that the amounts already paid, including Rs 2,00,000 per respondent, constitute full and final settlement of all claims. The appeals were therefore disposed of with directions confirming the payment and ordering the refund of any deposits to the Board.

Issues considered

Whether temporary workers under Section 17‑B of the Industrial Disputes Act must prove continuous employment of 240 days in a year to claim reinstatement and back wages
Whether the burden of proof lies on the workmen or can be shifted to the employer
Whether the award of reinstatement is enforceable when the workmen have attained superannuation
Whether the amount already paid, including the Supreme Court‑ordered Rs 2,00,000 per workman, amounts to full and final settlement of all claims

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 17-B

Subjects

temporary employmentIndustrial Disputes ActSection 17-Bback wagesreinstatementburden of proofsuperannuationcompensation in lieu of reinstatement

Judgment

862 [2019]
SUPREME COURT 7 S.C.R. 862
REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TWAD BOARD &
ANOTHER
v.
M. NATESAN ETC.
B (Civil Appeal Nos. 4875-4884 of 2019)
MAY 10, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947– s.17-B– Between 1986-89, the
respondents-workmen were engaged temporarily as Store Watchman
C
on daily wages in newly created Sectional stores in various Sub
Divisions under the control of Rural Water Supply (RWS) Divisions,
Nagercoil – Engagement Order mentioned that the services will be
terminated when the requirement is over and that they cannot claim
any further appointment in the appellant-Board – Sectional stores
D closed– Respondents terminated – Labour Court directed
reinstatement of the respondents with back wages for the period of
non-employment and with continuity of service – Single Judge
affirmed the award to the extent of reinstatement of the workmen
and held that since the matter was pending from 1991, the
respondents were entitled to get 50% back wages only – Writ appeal
E
– Dismissed – Held: For temporary workers like respondents, it is
mandatory to show that they continuously worked for 240 days in
a year – Initial burden is on them to adduce evidence – Only when
the initial burden is discharged by the respondents, the burden can
be shifted on the appellant – Single Judge and the Division Bench
F not right in placing the burden on the appellant to prove that the
respondents had not worked continuously for 240 days in a year –
However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this
question not gone into any further as most of the respondents have
attained the age of superannuation therefore, there is no question
of reinstatement – Amount already paid to each of the respondents
G
(including Rs.2 lakhs ordered by the Supreme Court as condition
for stay of the impugned judgment) shall be in full quit of all claims
including 50% back wages and also the quantum of compensation
in lieu of reinstatement – In appeal arising out of Writ Appeal
No.1439 of 2016, Rs.2 lakhs be paid by the appellant to the legal
H
862
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TWAD BOARD v. 863
M. NATESAN ETC.

representatives of the Respondent-since deceased – Amount lying A
in the deposit of Labour Court/High Court along with accrued
interest be refunded to the appellant – Order passed in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, not a precedent.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 For temporary worker like NMR respondents, B
it is mandatory to show that they have continuously worked for
240 days in a year. The initial burden is upon the respondents-
workmen to adduce evidence showing that they have worked
continuously for 240 days. Only when the initial burden is
discharged by the respondents-workmen, the burden can be C
shifted upon the appellant-Board. Both the Single Judge as well
as the Division Bench were not right in placing the burden upon
the appellant-Board to prove that the respondents-workmen had
not worked continuously for 240 days in a year. However, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this question is not
gone into any further as most of the respondents have attained D
the age of superannuation therefore, there is no question of
reinstatement. [Para 9] [865-F-H; 866-A]
1.2 The amount already paid to each of the respondents
(including Rs.2,00,000/- ordered by the Supreme Court) shall be
in full quit of all claims including 50% back wages and also the E
quantum of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In appeal
arising out of Writ Appeal No.1439 of 2016) Rs.2,00,000/- shall
be paid by the appellant-Board to the legal representatives of
the respondent-since deceased. The amount lying in the deposit
of Labour Court/High Court along with accrued interest is F
ordered to be refunded to the appellant-Board. The above order
is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
may not be quoted as a precedent. [Paras 11, 12] [867-B-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4875-
4884 of 2019. G
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2016 by the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 1434-1443 of 2016.
C. Paramasivam, Vinodh Kanna B., Advs. for the Appellants.

H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A Ms. Sanya Kumar, N. K. Verma, Trideep Pais, Ms. Sanya Su,
Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
B 2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.12.2016 passed
by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2016 and batch
in and by which the High Court has affirmed the order of the learned
Single Judge directing reinstatement and the back wages at 50%.
3. Between 1986-89, the respondents were engaged as Store
C Watchman on daily wages under NMR basis temporarily in newly created
Sectional stores in various Sub Divisions under the control of Rural Water
Supply (RWS) Divisions, Nagercoil. In the Engagement Order, it has
been specifically mentioned that the engagement on daily wage basis
will be purely temporary and the services will be terminated when the
requirement is over and that they cannot claim any right for any further
D appointment in TWAD Board. In the Engagement Order itself, it is clearly
stated that engagement is purely temporary and their services will be
terminated when the requirement is over without prior notice. In view of
the Board decision, all the Sectional stores were closed and the Divisional
stores (each for one district) were formed. Consequent on formation of
E Divisional stores, the respondents were terminated from their services
in the year 1990 for want of vacancies.
4. The respondents raised an industrial dispute and on failure of
the conciliation proceedings, the same was referred to the Labour Court,
Madurai. The Labour Court allowed the petitions and held that the
F termination of the services of the respondents is not valid and is not
sustainable. The Labour Court passed the award on 12.04.2000 directing
reinstatement of the respondents into service with back wages for the
period of non-employment and with continuity of service. Being
aggrieved, the appellant-Board filed writ petition in W.P.No.23720 of
2002 challenging the award of the Labour Court.
G
5. The learned Single Judge found that the workmen have not
produced any documents to show that they have worked continuously
for 240 days. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the
Management also has not produced any documents to show that the
respondents-workmen have not worked continuously for 240 days.
H
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TWAD BOARD v. 865
M. NATESAN ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

However, the learned Single Judge affirmed the award passed by the A
Labour Court to the extent of reinstatement of the workmen. Insofar as
the back wages are concerned, the learned Single Judge held that since
the matter has been pending from 1991, the respondents-workmen are
entitled to get 50% back wages only.
6. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Board has filed the writ appeal B
before the Division Bench which came to be dismissed by the impugned
judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Board has preferred the present
appeals.
7. On 10.08.2018, the Supreme Court granted stay of the impugned
judgment on condition that the appellant-Board to pay a sum of C
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to each of the contesting respondents
in addition to the amount that has already been paid to the respondents.
Mr. Paramasivam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-
Board has submitted that in compliance of the order dated 10.08.2018,
the appellant-Board has paid Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to each
of the respondents which has been recorded (vide order dated D
14.01.2019).
8. We have heard Mr. Paramasivam, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant-Board as well as Ms. Sanya Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-workmen.
E
9. In the judgment passed in the writ petition, the learned Single
Judge has pointed out that the respondents-workmen have not produced
any documents to prove that they have worked continuously for 240
days. For temporary worker like NMR respondents, it is mandatory to
show that they have continuously worked for 240 days in a year. This
aspect, in our view, ought to have been taken note by the Division Bench F
before affirming the order of reinstatement of the respondents. In the
impugned judgment, the Division Bench has observed that the attendance
register, salary certificates and other relevant documents were in the
possession of the appellant-Board and the same were not marked as
documents. It is to be pointed out that the initial burden is upon the G
respondents-workmen to adduce evidence showing that they have worked
continuously for 240 days. Only when the initial burden is discharged by
the respondents-workmen, the burden can be shifted upon the appellant-
Board. Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench were not
right in placing the burden upon the appellant-Board to prove that the
respondents-workmen had not worked continuously for 240 days in a H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 7 S.C.R.

A year. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we
are not inclined to go into this question any further. The reason being
that most of the respondents have attained the age of superannuation
therefore, there is no question of reinstatement.
10. All that we are concerned is the payment of 50% back wages
B and also the quantum of money payable in lieu of reinstatement. Learned
counsel appearing for the appellant- Board has produced a chart as to
the 50% back wages payable from the date of termination upto the
order of the Labour Court dated 12.04.2000 at the rate of Rs.18/- per
day as wages payable and also 50% of the back wages payable as per
schedule rates from the date of termination till the date crossing the age
C limit or death which reads as under:-
50% BACK WAGES CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF
TERMINATION TILL THE DATE OF CROSSING OF AGE
LIMIT OR DEATH
Sl.No. Name Date of Date of 50% back 50% of Total 50% back Amount
D termination crossing wages from back amount wages as already paid
age limit the date of wages payable per the including
(or) death termination from schedule Rs.2,00,000/-
upto Labour 13.04.2000 rates from as ordered by
Court order till the date the date of the Hon’ble
dt.12.4.2000 of crossing termination Court
at Rs.18/- the age till
per day limit or crossing
wage paid death the age
E at the time limit (or)
of death
termination
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
[3+4]

1. R. 31.05.1990 06.02.2011 31707 32310 64017 2,35,394 2,64,525
Piramuthu
2. K. 13.08.1990 12.06.2010 31329 30114 61443 1,96,694 2,60,205
F Thangappan
3. S. Ponnaian 23.07.1990 01.06.2011 31509 33255 64764 2,42,837 2,66,685
4. V. Harris 23.07.1990 24.04.2018 31509 34038 65547 5,73,633 2,71,280
5. N. 23.07.1990 18.09.2004 31509 14355 45864 1,30,172 0
Muthusamy (Death)
Nadar
6. D. 13.08.1990 22.05.2013 31968 39654 71622 3,09,373 2,7,9105
Sundararaj
G 7. M. Nadesan 06.08.1990 08.04.2017 31392 46431 77823 4,04,780 4,67,130
8. N. 29.06.1990 09.05.2013 31716 42363 74079 3,19,738 2,70,740
Yesudhas
9. S. Johnson 31.07.1990 25.02.2019 31437 49257 80694 3,70,113 6,75,679
10. V. 06.08.1991 03.06.2013 31392 42570 73962 2,85,300 2,71,280
Sathiyadas
Total: 3,15,468/- 3,64,347/- 6,79,815/- 30,68,034/- 30,26,629/-
H
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TWAD BOARD v. 867
M. NATESAN ETC. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

The above amount so far paid to the respondents under Section A
17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rs.2,00,000/- paid to each
of the workmen (except M. Muthuswamy Nadar-who is dead) shall be
treated as back wages and also the compensation in full quit of all claims
in lieu of reinstatement and all other claims.
11. The appeals are disposed of with the following directions and B
observations:-
The amount already paid to each of the respondents (including
Rs.2,00,000/- ordered by the Supreme Court) shall be in full quit of all
claims including 50% back wages and also the quantum of compensation
in lieu of reinstatement. So far as the respondent–M. Muthuswamy Nadar C
(appeal arising out of Writ Appeal No.1439 of 2016) is concerned, the
amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) ordered by this Court shall
be paid to his legal representatives by the appellant-Board. The amount
lying in the deposit of Labour Court/High Court along with accrued interest
is ordered to be refunded to the appellant-Board.
D
12. The above order is passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and may not be quoted as a precedent.

Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of.

E

F

G

H