THE MANAGER(FACTORY) MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. & A Vs. SURESH S/O DADARAO GADGE
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 27 of 2015, Judgment Date: Dec 17, 2014
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.27 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP(C)NO.23294 OF 2014)
THE MANAGER(FACTORY) MAHARASHTRA STATE
COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.
& ANR. ... APPELLANTS
VS.
SURESH S/O DADARAO GADGE ... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
Leave granted.
2. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides have requested for
quick disposal of the appeal and we are also of the view that earlier
disposal of the appeal would be in the interest of justice as well as the
parties to the litigation. In the circumstances, the appeal is heard and
decided today.
3. The respondent had been appointed as a peon on daily wage basis on
1st July, 1994 and was discontinued from service from 4th March, 1996,
without making any payment of retrenchment compensation.
4. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had not been engaged to
work by following the normal practice and thus he was engaged by way of
"back door entry".
5. The respondent had challenged his termination by approaching the
Labour Court, Nanded (Maharashtra). The Labour Court, by its Award dated
29th December, 2010, in Comp.ULP/No.2/1996, decided in favour of the
respondent, whereby it was directed that he should be reinstated in service
with continuity of service from 4th March, 1996, but without back wages.
6. The said Award has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court by its judgment and order dated 27th March, 2014, passed in Writ
Petition No.8809 of 2012.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court affirming
the Award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant-employer has approached
this Court.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view
that the respondent ought not to have been reinstated in service as he was
not in a regular service. In fact, no other person junior to the respondent
had been continued at Parbhani unit of the appellant, which had been closed
down. In fact, there was no work at Parbhani unit, as the said unit had
been closed down, the respondent, who was working on daily wage basis, was
not continued on daily wage basis, but it is an admitted fact that he was
not given retrenchment compensation.
9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in our opinion, it would be
just and appropriate not to reinstate the respondent, especially, in view
of the fact that (i) the respondent had hardly worked for a period of about
a year and a half on daily wage basis; (ii) his appointment was irregular
and; (iii) Parbhani unit of the appellant, where the respondent was
employed, has now been closed down.
10. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, it would be just and
proper to award a sum of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) by way of
compensation to the respondent, It is pertinent to note that he did not
lead any evidence or file any affidavit before the Labour Court stating
that he was unemployed during the period of litigation. The aforestated
amount of Rs.2 lakhs by way of compensation shall be paid to the respondent
by the appellant within four weeks from today.
11. In addition to Rs.2 lakhs, the amount of cost deposited by the
appellant with the Registry of this Court, i.e., Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty
five thousand only), is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent.
12. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the
appeal is allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.
..............J.
[ANIL R. DAVE]
.............J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
New Delhi;
17th December, 2014.