Hari Mohan Rastogi vs Labour Court And Anr.
- SCC1984 Supp (1) SCC 428
- AIRAIR 1984 SC 502
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a termination of service lacks the prerequisites for a valid retrenchment under established law, the termination is invalid and inoperative, and the employee must be treated as having remained continuously in service without interruption from the date of the wrongful termination. An employee who has been wrongfully terminated but subsequently re-employed in a different position and has received salary in that position is entitled to arrears of salary and other monetary and non-monetary benefits accruing from the date of the invalid termination, but credit must be given for all salary and allowances actually received during the period of re-employment. Where an employee's entitlement to back-wages and benefits following a declaration of invalid termination is disputed, the Labour Court should be directed to undertake a detailed computation of all monetary and non-monetary benefits due, giving appropriate credit for amounts already received, and to submit its report to the High Court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. We heard Mr. A.P. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Markandeya, learned Counsel for respondents.
2. In view of fee decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. dated April 21, 1981 , the termination of service of the appellant by respondent U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow on and from December 31, 1967 will constitute retrenchment and prerequisite for a valid order of retrenchment being absent has to be treated as invalid and inoperative. The appellant will continue to be in service as Town-in charge continuously without interruption and any break from the date of ineffective termination of service.
3. Now that the appellant continues to be in service as town-in-charge, he will be entitled to arrears of salary and other benefits which can be computed in terms of money. One peculiar feature of this case is that the appellant was re-employed afresh as Sub-Station Assistant on December 4, 1968 and was confirmed in that post. While rendering his service as Sub-Station Assistant he was in receipt of monthly salary. Therefore, while working out the monetary benefit with regard to the arrears of back-wages and other monetary benefits, credit will have to be given for what the appellant has received as and by way of salary and all other allowances.
4. Mr. Markandeya for the employer stated that on the computation made by the respondent-Management, it will have to pay Rs. 13,000/- and odd to the appellant. This amount will be paid by respondent-Management to the appellant within one month from today and the appellant will accept the same without prejudice to all his contentions.
5. As the appellant does not accept the computation made by the respondent-management, it would be necessary to determine the monetary benefit to which Appellant would be entitled. In this connection, we would like to follow a precedent in CMP learned Counsel 15708 of 1981 in C.A. learned Counsel 364 of 1981 wherein in similar circumstances, we directed the Labour Court to compute the benefits which the appellant was entitled to, pursuant to the decision of this Court.
6. We, therefore, direct that the appellant shall be re-posted as Town-in-charge forthwith and not later than a fortnight from today. We direct the Labour Court to compute the back-wages payable by respondent to the appellant pursuant to this decision and this computation may be both of monetary benefits and non-monetary benefits to which the appellant is entitled after giving credit for the amount of Rs. 13,000/- which would be paid to the appellant within one month from today. The balance shall be paid within such reasonable time as may be determined by the Labour Court. The Labour Court do compute monetary and no monetary benefits within a period of six months from today. The report will also be submitted to this Court. Respondent shall pay Rs. 1,000/- at and by way of costs to the appellant.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free