State Of Chhattisgarh vs Karishna Kumar Kashyap
- SCC(2017) 14 SCC 283
- Neutral2017 INSC 424
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under the Industrial Disputes Act, a workman's entitlement to status or benefits does not depend on whether he has completed ten years of service; the only relevant legal consideration is whether the workman has completed 240 days of work within a period of one year of continuous service.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5813 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.36862/2016]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KARISHNA KUMAR KASHYAP RESPONDENT(S)
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5815 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36863/2016, CIVIL APPEAL NO.5816 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36864/2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5818 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36865/2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5825 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 36869/2016 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5827 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 346/2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5828 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11431/2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5832 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11433/2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5833 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 10912/2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5834 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11430/2017 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5835 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.14281/2017 @ CC No(s). 7815/2017
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The only issue in these cases is, whether the
learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by in making the classification while interfering with NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.05.05 11:15:27 IST Reason: the award passed by the Labour Court, between those
1 who had ten years of service and those with less than
ten years of service.
4. We are afraid, the approach made by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court is not sustainable
under law. The only relevant consideration is,
whether the workman had completed 240 days within a
period of one year continuous service. It was that
legal error that was corrected by the Division Bench
in the impugned judgment.
5. We are informed that all the respondents/workmen
have been working ever since the award was passed by
the Labour Court. That means all the respondents
have been working for quite some time now.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
No.1/State has submitted that the State may not have
sufficient work for accommodating the respondents.
If that be so, it is for the appellant No.1/State to
take appropriate steps in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes
Act, without prejudice to any other liberty available
to them to act in accordance with law.
7. We also find that a coordinate Bench of this
Court has already dealt with the similar issue
leading to order dated 03.01.2017 rendered in Civil
Appeal No.34 of 2017 declining to interfere with the
award passed by the Labour Court.
2
8. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
10. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI;
MAY 01, 2017.
3 ITEM NO.50 & 51 COURT NO.7 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36862/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/11/2015 in WA No. 574/2015 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur)
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANR. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS KARISHNA KUMAR KASHYAP RESPONDENT(S) (with office report)
WITH SLP(C) No. 36863/2016 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 36864/2016 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 36865/2016 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 36869/2016 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 346/2017 SLP(C) No. 11431/2017 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 11433/2017 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 10912/2017 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 11430/2017 (With Office Report) CC No(s). 7815/2017 (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report)
Date : 01/05/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Apoorv Kurup,Adv.
Mr. V.C. Shukla,Adv.
Mr. Avanish Rathi,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. J.P. Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Shankar Divate,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed judgment.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed “Non-Reportable” Judgment is placed on the file)
4
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