Santuram Yadav & Anr vs Sec.,Krishi Upaj M.S.Bemetara & Anr

Santuram Yadav & Anr. .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Secretary, Krishi Upaj M.S. Bemetara & Anr. .... Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are directed against the final order dated

02.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge of the High

Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No.

5508 of 2006 and final order dated 06.11.2007 passed by

the Division Bench of the same High Court in W.A. (P.R.)

No. 6823 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the

1 writ petition and the writ appeal filed by the appellants

herein.

3) Brief Facts:

According to the appellants, on 05.08.1989, they were

selected on the temporary post of Nakedar by a duly

constituted Selection Committee on the pay-scale

determined by the Collector. At the threat of removal, the

appellants approached the Labour Court in 1994. At this

stage, respondent No.1 and the appellants filed a joint

petition dated 10.01.1995 for compromise in which

respondent No.1 agreed to reinstate the appellants and

also to grant seniority and other benefits from the date of

their initial appointment that is 05.08.1989. On the basis

of the compromise petition, the award dated 27.04.1995

was passed by the Labour Court, Durg, directing the

respondent-therein to reinstate the appellants herein.

Again in 2000, when an attempt was made to remove the

appellants arbitrarily, initially it was the High Court which

granted status quo in their favour and thereafter the

2 higher authorities intervened and prevented the

respondents from victimizing the appellants. In view of

the said efforts, the respondents once again ordered

reinstatement of the appellants on 06.01.2001.

4) Despite such voluminous material demonstrating the

continuous working of the appellants with the

respondents, according to the appellants they were

dismissed on the ground of failure to establish that they

worked for more than 240 days continuously in one

calendar year. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants

approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. By

the order impugned, the High Court, after pointing out

that the appellants were on daily wage basis and have not

completed 240 days in one calendar year which is the

condition precedent for attracting the provisions of Section

25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confirmed the

order of the Labour Court and dismissed their writ

petition. The said order is under challenge in these

appeals.

3

5) Heard Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned counsel for

the appellants and Mr. Milind Kumar, learned counsel for

the respondents.

6) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants-workmen fairly stated that because of the

ignorance though the appellants were having adequate

materials in the form of documents and communications

from the respondents/employer, they were not properly

placed the same before the Labour Court in support of

their claim for reinstatement. He also submitted that even

before the High Court these additional documents were

not placed for consideration and requested this Court to

consider the same in order to render substantial justice to

the workmen. The appellants have filed a separate

application for taking those additional documents

Annexures P-18 and P-19 on record. Considering the

plight of the workmen, we perused the said Annexures P-

18 and P-19 which contain details such as number of

days worked in a month, salary paid by the respondents

4 commencing from year 1994 ending with 2004. The

documents in Annexures P-18 and P-19 clearly show the

number of days on which both the appellants worked.

7) Apart from the above details, the appellants have also

pressed into service Annexure-P4, the terms and

conditions of compromise entered into between the

appellants/workmen and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,

Bemetara/Management. Since Annexure-P4 was pressed

into service by the workmen, it is useful to refer the same:

"ANNEXURE P/4

BEFORE THE HON'BLE LABOUR COURT, DURG

Case No. 18/1994 I.D. Act Date of Institution: 10.01.1995

Balram Singh Rajput, Clerk Santuram Yadav, Nakedar Santosh Yadav, Bhritya ... First Party

AND

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bemetara ... Second Party

Both parties respectfully submits that the both parties have arrived at compromise under the following terms and conditions

5 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COMPROMISE

1. That the second party will reinstate the first party workmen into their services and they will be granted seniority from the date of their first appointment.

2. That towards the symbolic backwages for the period in the meantime, the second party will pay a sum of Rs.1/- per workmen.

3. That the first party workmen will get salary from the date of their joining of duty and as per the Circular No. 2546 dated 28.02.1994 of the Hon'ble Collector, Durg in the following manner

Balram Singh Rajput, Clerk - Rs. 1412/-

Santu Ram Yadav, Nakedar - Rs. 996/- Santosh Kumar Yadav, Bhritya - Rs. 996/-

Per month. Apart from the aforesaid Circular, the Circulars issued by the Hon'ble Collector in this reference, shall also be applicable on both parties.

It is respectfully prayed that an Award may be passed under the terms and conditions of the aforesaid compromise.

Prayed accordingly.

Durg Date: Advocate for the Second Party

Applicant:

1. Balram Singh Rajput, Clerk

2. Santu Ram Yadav, Nakedar

3. Santosh Kumar Bhritya Advocate for the First Party"

8) Based on the compromise between the appellants

and the respondent-management, the Labour Court, Durg

by award dated 27.04.1995 while making a reference

6 about justifiability of the termination of service of these

workmen recorded the compromise deed and directed the

management to reinstate Santuram Yadav and Santosh

Yadav, the appellants herein.

9) On going through Annexure P-4, compromise memo

between the workmen and the management, followed by

an award dated 27.04.1995 of the Labour Court, Durg as

well as the materials furnished in the form of Annexures

P-18 and P-19 about the number of days on which both

the appellants worked and the wages received clearly

support their stand. We are conscious of the fact of the

implication of Constitution Bench decision of this Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs.

Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. However, in view

of the peculiar facts, namely, the stand taken by the

Management in the form of compromise agreeing to

reinstate and provide seniority from the date of their first

appointment 05.08.1989, as evidenced in the

"Compromise Deed", we are of the view that the

7 information/materials mentioned above cannot be ignored

lightly though not projected before the Labour Court and

the High Court. Considering the abundant materials

which were unfortunately not placed before the Labour

Court and in order to give an opportunity to these

workmen, we set aside the order of the Labour Court,

Durg dated 08.08.2006 in case No. 56/ID

Act/Reference/2005 and the order of the High Court

dated 02.11.2006 in Writ Petition No. 5508 of 2006 and

order dated 06.11.2007 in W.A. (P.R.) No. 6823 of 2007

and remit the matter to the Labour Court, Durg with a

direction to consider the claim of the workmen afresh.

The workmen are permitted to place Annexures 4, 5, 18

and 19 as well as any other relevant documents in

support of their claim before the Labour Court. The

respondents/management are also permitted to place the

relevant material, if any, in support of their defence. Both

the workmen and the management are permitted to place

their relevant materials in support of their respective

8 stand within a period of eight weeks and thereafter,

Labour Court, Durg is directed to consider and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording

opportunity to both parties, within a period of three

months thereafter.

10) The civil appeals are allowed on the above terms. No

costs.

..........................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

..........................................J. (R.M. LODHA) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 16, 2010.

9