The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices M.R.Shah and B.V. Nagarathna opined that when the appointment was purely on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs.500/- per month, the order of reinstatement with back wages was not warranted.
Facts
The respondent was appointed as sweeper firstly, by written order of appointment and by another order on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.500/- per month. There was an increase of Rs.50/- per month in her consolidated honorarium. She continuously worked as sweeper till she was terminated. Her husband was working as a coolie in MSRTC, and suddenly he became blind and his family thus abruptly went in a state of penury. Therefore, she was employed as a sweeper on contractual basis.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a complaint u/s 28 read with item (1) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Labour Court against the appellant – MSRTC. The Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate her with back wages on the ground that termination was in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. It also held that the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act shall be applicable. Feeling aggrieved, the MSRTC preferred revision petition before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the said Revision Application and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court. Feeling dissatisfied, the respondent-workman preferred writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and set aside the judgment passed by the Industrial Court and restored the award passed by the Labour Court of reinstatement and back wages. Feeling aggrieved, the MSRTC preferred the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and by the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said appeal, hence the MSRTC has preferred the present appeal.
Contentions made
Appellant- The High Court committed a grave error in ordering reinstatement of the respondent with back wages. It has materially erred in observing and/or confirming the order passed by the Labour Court holding that there was a breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appointment of the respondent was on purely contractual basis and for a particular period and on completion of the same, her services were put to end. Hence, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act shall not be applicable and therefore there is no question of breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Respondent- Concurrent findings were recorded by the three courts that the termination of the respondent was in 4 breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. So, the Labour Court rightly ordered reinstatement with back wages. The complaint was made by the respondent alleging unfair labour practices. She was appointed in place of her husband who, unfortunately, turned blind. As she continuously worked till her services were terminated and there was no break in service, the termination was rightly held to be in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“There was no specific finding recorded by the Labour Court that there was any unfair labour practice adopted by the MSRTC. The only finding recorded by the Labour Court was that the termination was in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act.”
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of 6 the case, when the appointment was purely on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs.500/- per month, the order of reinstatement with back wages was not warranted and instead if the lumpsum compensation is awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages as observed hereinabove, it will meet the ends of justice.”
Judgment
The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court was hereby modified and the appellant was directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the day.
Case Name: Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 31st January 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments