Prem Narain vs M/S Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Juhi & Anr
- SCC(2017) 11 SCC 325
- Neutral2016 INSC 172
- AIRAIR 2016 SC 1248
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employer does not challenge an award of reinstatement by a Labour Court and confines its opposition only to the award of backwages, a High Court exercising judicial review should not set aside the entire award on reinstatement but should confine any relief to modifying or limiting the backwages component alone. Where a workman has been wrongfully terminated and subsequently reinstated by Labour Court award, but has attained the age of superannuation between the date of termination and the date of the award, the workman is entitled to backwages at 50% of wages from the date of termination until the date of superannuation, and shall be deemed to have continued in service and superannuated on the date when superannuation would have occurred, for purposes of computing all other terminal benefits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The appellant was terminated from the services of the first respondent on 31.10.1991. The Labour Court, Kanpur, set aside the termination of the appellant by its award published on 04.10.1997. In the meanwhile, the appellant had already attained the age of superannuation on 01.07.1997.
3. The award on reinstatement was not challenged by the respondent- Management. The only ground taken before the High Court was their liability to pay backwages.
4. The High Court, taking note of the fact that by the time, the award was published, the appellant-workman had already attained the age of superannuation, set aside the award and allowed the writ petition.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, the appellant has filed the present petition by special leave before this Court.
6. We fail to understand the reasoning and approach made by the High Court. Once the Management does not have any grievance on the award on reinstatement and the grievance was limited only to backwages, the High Court should not have set aside the award as such. Appropriate orders on backwages alone were permissible at the hands of the High Court.
7. Be that as it may, taking note of the pleadings available on record, we direct that the appellant would be entitled to 50% backwages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation.
8. Needless also to say, he would be deemed to have continued in service and superannuated on 01.07.1997 for all other benefits. All eligible benefits due to the appellant in the light of this Judgment shall be computed and paid to the appellant within three months from today and any default in making the payment, as aforesaid, shall carry interest at the rate of 18% from the date of termination till the date of payment.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
February 15, 2016.
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