B.S.N.L. Ltd vs Man Singh

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Appellant(s)

:VERSUS:

MAN SINGH Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8748 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9997/2007)

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Appellant(s)

:VERSUS:

MANI RAM Respondent(s)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8749 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.13183/2007)

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Appellant(s)

:VERSUS:

SEWA RAM Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties.

3. The respondents workmen worked with the

appellant as casual labourers on daily wages during

the year 1984-85. Due to non-availability of work,

2

their services were terminated in the year 1986. No

notice or retrenchment compensation was given to

them before terminating their services. After about

five years, they raised an industrial dispute in

the year 1991. The appropriate Government referred

the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication.

The Labour Court vide its award dated 27.5.2005

ordered reinstatement of the respondents-workmen on

the same post which they were holding at the time of

their termination.

4. The award of reinstatement passed by the

Labour Court was challenged by the Department by

filing writ petitions before the High Court. The

High Court after hearing the learned counsel for the

parties and going through the records of this case,

dismissed the writ petitions filed by the

Department. The appellant is thus before this Court.

5. This Court in a catena of decisions has

clearly laid down that although an order of

retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an

award of reinstatement should not be passed. This

3

Court has distinguished between a daily wager who

does not hold a post and a permanent employee.

6. In view of the aforementioned legal position

and the fact that the respondents - workmen were

engaged as 'daily wagers' and they had merely worked

for more than 240 days, in our considered view,

relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be

justified and instead, monetary compensation would

meet the ends of justice.

7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by

the High Court as also the award dated 27.5.2005

passed by the Labour Court are set aside. We direct

the appellant Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs.2

lakhs to each of the respondents in full and final

settlement of their claim, within six weeks from

today. In case the payment is not made within the

aforementioned stipulated time, the amount shall

carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

4

8. These appeals are accordingly allowed to the

aforesaid extent. The parties are directed to bear

their own costs.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi;

October 14, 2011.