U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDversusLAXMI KANT GUPTA

 ,•;A                          [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1051


                       U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD                         A
                                         \I.
                               LAXMI KANT GUPTA
                         (Civil Appeal No.5863 of 2008)
4   ...
                             SEPTEMBER 26, 2008
                                                                            B
             [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

               ·UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.6N - Illegal termi-
          nation of service - Relief - Scope of - Held: No hard and fast
          principle that on termination being found to be illega1, relief of c
          re-instatement with back wages is to .be granted- Compensa-
          tion can be awarded instead, at the discretion ofthe Labour
          Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. ·
                TtJe Labour Court directed re-instatement of Respon-
-~
           dent on the ground. that his service was terminated with- D
           out complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the
           U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent was how-
           ever denied back wages inasmuch as he had challenged
           his termination after inordinate delay of about 10 years.
          ·Appellant filed writ petition. The order of re-instatement E
           was upheld by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
               Allowing the appeal, the Court
                HELD:1. While the earlier view of the Court was that ·
-~        if an order of termination was found to be illegal, normally
                                                                       F
          the relief to be granted should be re-instatement with full
          back wages. However, with the passage of time it came
          to be realized that an industry should not be compelled
          to pay to the workman for the period during which he ap-
          parently contributed little or nothing at all. The changes
                                                                       G
          brought out by the subsequent decisions of this Court,
          probably having regard to the changes in the policy-de-
--+       cisions of the government in the wake of prevailing mar-
          ket economy, globalization, privatization and outsourcing
                                       1051                                 H
    1052       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A was evident. There is no hard and fast principle now that
  on the termination of service being found to be illegal, the
  normal rule is re-instatement with back wages. Compen-
  sation can be awarded instead, at the discretion of the
  Labour Court, depending on the facts and circumstances
B of the case. [Paras 9, 11] [1054,D-E; 1054,F-G; 1055,B]
           U. P State Brassware Corporation Ltd. & another v. Uday
    Narain Pandey JT (2005) 10 SC 344 and Haryana State Elec-
    tronics Development Corporation v. Mamni AiR (2006) SC
    2427 - relied on.
c       2.1. In the present case, Respondent has already re-
  ceived more than Rs. 7 lakhs. This has happened because
  although the Labour Court in its award dated 14.11.1996
  only granted re-instatement without back wages, subse-
  quently, as a result of the interim order of the High Court
D in the writ petition filed before it, the workman was granted
  his salary instead of re-instatement as an interim measure.
  Consequently, as a result of that interim order he has re-
  ceived more than Rs. 7 lakhs. Coupled with the fact that
  the respondent worked for only 2 years (1984-86) as .a
E purely temporary employee and the fact that he raised
  the industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer only
  after 10 years of his termination of service, the respon-
  dent has already got more than sufficient compensation.
  [Para 12] [1055 C-E]
F
        2.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, com-
  pensation should have been granted instead of re-instate-
  ment. The amount already paid to the respondent is more
  than sufficient compensation for his illegal termination of
  service, and no further amount need to be paid to him.
G However, what has already been paid to him should not
  be recovered from him. [Para 13] [1055 F-G]
                           Case Lal!Y Reference
           JT (2005) 10 SC 344          relied on      Para 9
H
                U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. LAXMI                1053
                             KANT GUPTA

            AIR (2006) SC 2427              relied on      Para 10          A
            CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5863
       of 2008
             From the final judgment and Order dated 20.3.2006 of
• ,.   the High Court of Judicature atAllah.abad in Civil Misc. Writ        B
       Petition No. 11078 of 1997

            Ahanthem Henry and Raj iv Mehta for the Appellant.

           Dr. J.N. Dubey, Anurag Dubey, Anu Sawhney, Meenesh
       Dubey, S.K. Diwakar and S.R. Setia for the Respondent.               c
            MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted.

           2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judg-
       ment and order dated 20.3.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
       11078 of 1997 of the Allahabad High Court.
                                                                            D
' i
            3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
       record.
             4. The writ petition in the High Court was filed against the
       award of the Labour Court IV, Kanpur dated 14.11.1996 (an-           E
       nexure P/4 to this appeal). That award was given on a refer-
       ence made by the State Government un.der Section 4-K of the
       U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 regarding the termination of
       service of respondent, Laxmi Kant Gupta from the service of
       the appellant.
                                                                            F
             5. The respondent claimed that he was appointed as Coo-
       lie on 16.1.1984 and worked till 15.2.1986, and that his service
       was then terminated without complying with the provisions of
       Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant,
       on the other hand, alleged that the respondent was never given G
       a regular appointment.
            6: Admittedly, the respondent challenged his termination
-+     of service after a delay of about 10 years by approaching the
       Conciliation Officer only on 14.9.1995. The Labour Court ob-
       served that no reason has been given for this inordinate delay       H
    1054      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 13 S.C.R.
                                                                          \•

A of about 10 years in raising this dispute, and on this ground the
    Labour Court denied back wages to the respondent and granted
    only re-instateme;nt on the ground that Section 6-N was violated.

          7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted before
    us that the point of delay in raising the industrial dispute was      )>     •
8   not taken by the appellant in its written statement before the
    Labour Court, and hence the said point cannot be urged here.

          8. Without going into this submission we are of the view that
    the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High
c   Court as well as the award of the Labour Court granting re-instate-
    men! deserves to be set aside for the reasons given below.

        9. In UP State Brassware Corporation Ltd. & another vs.
  Uday Narain Pandey JT 2005 (10) SC 344, this Court referred
  to a large number of its earlier decisions on the question as to
D the relief to be granted to the workman when his termination of         "r <
  service is found to be illegal. It was noted that while the earlier
  view of the Court was that if an order of termination was found
  to be illegal, normally the relief to be granted should be re-in-
  statement with full back wages. However, as noted in the vari-
E ous decisions referred to in the above decision, with the pas-
  sage of time it came to be realized that an industry should not
  be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which
  he apparently contributed little or nothing at all. This Court after
  discussing various earlier decisions held that the relief to be
F granted is discretionary and not automatic. It was pointed out in            )r •

  the aforesaid decision of this Court in UP Brassware Corpo-
  ration (supra) that a person is not entitled to get something only
  because it would be lawful to do so. The changes brought out
  by the subsequent decisions of this Court, probably having re-
  gard to the changes in the policy-decisions of the government
G
  in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalization,
  privatization and outsourcing was evident. Hence now there Is
  no such principle that for an illegal termination of service the             t.
  normal rule is re-instatement with back wages, and instead the
  Labour Court can award compensation.
H
                 U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v LAXMI                  1055
                   KANT GUPTA [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

            10. The same view was followed by this Court in Haryana            A
       State Electronics Development Corporation vs. Mamni AIR
       2006 SC 2427 (vide paragraphs 15 to 17).
             11. Thus it is evident that there has been a shift in the legal
       position which has been modified by this Court and now there
       is no hard and fast principle now that on the termination of ser-       B
       vice being found to be illegal, the normal rule is re-in~tatement
       with back wages. Compensation can be awarded instead, at
       the discretion of the Labour Court, depending on the facts and
       circumstances of the case.
             12. In the present case, we are informed that the respon- C
       dent has already received more than Rs. 7 lakhs. This has hap-
       pened because although the Labour Court in,its award dated
       14.11.1996 only granted re-instatement without back wages,
       subsequently, as a result of the interim order of the High Court
       in the writ petition filed before it, the workman was granted his 0
       salary instead of re-Instatement as an interim measure. Con-
       sequently, as a result of that interim order he has received more
       than Rs. 7 lakhs. Coupled with the facts that the respondent
       worked for only 2 years (1984-86) as a purely temporary em-
       ployee and the fact that he raised the industrial dispute before
       the Conciliation Officer only after 10 years of his termination of E
       service, we are of the opinion that the respondent has already
       got more than sufficient compensation in this case.
             13. Hence, while we are not inclined to quash the reference
       order on the ground of delay, we allow this appeal and set aside
---1   the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as            F
       the Labour Court to the extent that they grant re-instatement to
       the respondent, and we hold that in this case compensation
       should have been granted instead of re-instatement. In this case
       the· amount already paid to the respondent is more than suffi-
       cient compensation for his illegal termination of service, and no       G
       further amount need to be paid to him. However, what has al-
       ready been paid to him should not be recovered from him.
            14. The appeal thus stands allowed. No costs.
                                                                          I
       8.8.8.                                            Appeal allowed.       H