Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (Civil Appeal No. 5810 of 2009) has held that a daily wage labourer does not automatically get reinstated with full back pay when the termination of his employment is found to be illegal due to a procedural defect. The Supreme Court has also discussed the conditions under which it would be apposite to reinstate a daily wage labourer.
Facts of the case:
The Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (‘Respondent’) claimed to have worked for 18 (eighteen) years as a daily wager for the Deputy Executive Engineer, R & B Department, Surendranagar (‘Appellant’). However, he was aggrieved by the termination of his services by the Appellant without following due process of law, i.e. under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (‘the Act’).
The Appellant rebutted the claim of the Respondent by stating that he had only worked with the Appellant for a period of two years between 1979 to 1981 and was therefore not entitled to reinstatement or compensation.
Aggrieved by the Appellant’s reply, the Respondent approached the Labour Court at Surendranagar. The Labour Court ruled in favour of the Respondent and directed reinstatement of the Respondent without backpay. The Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat to challenge the ruling of the Labour Court. The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the award of the Labour Court. The Appellant thus preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court's observations and findings:
The Supreme Court clarified that the general principle of ‘grant of reinstatement with full back wages when termination is found to be illegal’ is not applicable to cases of illegal termination of a daily wage labourer due to a procedural defect. Instead it held that the courts should award monetary compensation. The Supreme Court elaborated that, if reinstatement were granted, a daily wage labourer would still not have a right to regularisation and thus the management could still terminate the services of such an employee by paying him retrenchment compensation. Thus no useful purpose would be served by awarding reinstatement in such cases. The ends of justice would be better met if the worker was awarded monetary compensation to the extent of retrenchment compensation and notice pay that he would have received if he had been terminated again after reinstatement.
The Supreme Court, however, highlighted scenarios where reinstatement should be the primary relief granted. In cases where the termination of the daily wage labourer was illegal on the grounds of unfair labour practice, or in violation of the principle of last come first go, and so forth, the Supreme Court emphasised that reinstatement should not be denied.
The Supreme Court, observing the short tenure of employment of the worker, the lack of a right to regularisation and the fact that the worker had raised this dispute almost fifteen years after his termination, awarded monetary compensation and partly allowed the appeal.
7A, 7th Floor, Tower C, Max House,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3,
New Delhi – 110020
+91 11 23701284/5/7
The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:
a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;
c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;
d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and
e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.