STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR. Vs. KARISHNA KUMAR KASHYAP

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 5813 of 2017, Judgment Date: May 01, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.5813 OF 2017
                [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.36862/2016]


STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR.                                  APPELLANT(S)

                                VERSUS

KARISHNA KUMAR KASHYAP                                         RESPONDENT(S)

                                    WITH
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5815  OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36863/2016,
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5816 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36864/2016
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5818 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36865/2016
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5825 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36869/2016
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5827 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 346/2017
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5828 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11431/2017
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5832 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11433/2017
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5833 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 10912/2017
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5834 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11430/2017
      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5835 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.14281/2017 @
      CC No(s).  7815/2017

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

      Delay condoned.
2.    Leave granted.
3.    The only issue in these cases is, whether the learned Single Judge  of
the High Court was justified in making the classification while  interfering
with the award passed by the Labour Court, between those who had  ten  years
of service and those with less than ten years of service.
4.    We are afraid, the approach made by the learned Single  Judge  of  the
High Court is not sustainable under law.  The  only  relevant  consideration
is, whether the workman had completed 240 days within a period of  one  year
continuous service.  It was that legal  error  that  was  corrected  by  the
Division Bench in the impugned judgment.
5.    We are informed that all the  respondents/workmen  have  been  working
ever since the award was passed by the Labour Court.   That  means  all  the
respondents have been working for quite some time now.
6.    Learned counsel appearing for the appellant No.1/State  has  submitted
that  the  State  may  not  have  sufficient  work  for  accommodating   the
respondents.  If that be so, it is for  the  appellant  No.1/State  to  take
appropriate steps in accordance with  the  procedure  prescribed  under  the
Industrial Disputes Act, without prejudice to any  other  liberty  available
to them to act in accordance with law.
7.    We also find that a coordinate Bench of this Court has  already  dealt
with the similar issue leading to order dated 03.01.2017 rendered  in  Civil
Appeal No.34 of 2017 declining to interfere with the  award  passed  by  the
Labour Court.
8.    The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
9.    Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
10.   There shall be no orders as to costs.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                              [R. BANUMATHI]
      NEW DELHI;
      MAY 01, 2017.