Bharatlal Yadav Vs Jal Sansadhan Vibhag

3.1 - Bhagwati Kumar Nishad S/o Late Nema Kumar Nishad, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Deori, Thana Neora, Tahsil Neora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3.2 - Santosh Kumar Nishad S/o Late Nema Kumar Nishad, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Deori, Thana Neora, Tahsil Neora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3.3 - Bhagirathi Nishad S/o Late Nema Kumar Nishad, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Deori, Thana Neora, Tahsil Neora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3.4 - Shiv Kumar Nishad S/o Late Nema Kumar Nishad, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Deori, Thana Neora, Tahsil Neora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

Babulal Sinha S/o Shri Khorbahra Sinha, Aged About 42 Years R/o Banbhimori, Thana Tilda Neora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

Omprakash Verma S/o Shri Sahdeoram Verma, Aged About 44 Years R/o Khamariya Thana Neora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

Revaram Dhimar S/o Shri Ramuram Dhimar, R/o Bhimori, Thana Tilda, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Petitioners

¶18

Versus

¶19

Jal Sansadhan Vibhag Through Chief Engineer, Sinchai Bhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

Executive Engineer, Bhatapara Nahar Nirman Sambhag 3, Tilda, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶21

... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer

¶22

2

¶23

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶24

13/02/2025

¶25

The petitioners have assailed the award passed by the Labour Court, Raipur, CG in Civil Case No. 2/IDAct/2013 dated 12.05.2017, whereby the learned Labour Court has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh each in favor of the petitioners in lieu of reinstatement. The petitioners were appointed as daily rated labourers under the respondents in the year 1990. Their services were terminated by the oral order in the year 1994. A certificate was issued by the competent authority with regard to the length of their services. The petitioners raised a dispute before the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the ID Act and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The parties exchanged their pleadings, led evidence and thereafter the learned Labour Court vide award dated 12.05.2017 granted compensation of Rs.1 lakh to each petitioner in lieu of reinstatement.

¶26

Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners worked for more than 04 years and a meager amount has been awarded by the learned Labour Court. He relied on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs or more has been awarded. He would pray to enhance the amount of compensation as the petitioners have already crossed the age of superannuation.

¶27

On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing of the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that the length of service of the petitioners is 04 years and thus, the learned Labour Court has awarded just compensation of Rs.1 lakh

¶28

3

¶29

each to the petitioners and thus the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the instant petition.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioners worked as daily rated employees for a period of 04 years from 1990 to 1994. Their services were terminated by an oral order. A dispute was raised, the matter was referred, parties led evidence and the petitioners proved the fact that they worked for 04 years under the respondents. The petitioners were denied reinstatement as they approached the appropriate Government at a belated stage.

¶32

In the matter of Kanhiya Ram Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others passed in Writ Appeal No. 435 of 2019 decided on 21.12.2023 , the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court enhanced the compensation from 03 lakhs to 05 lakhs considering the length of service.

¶33

In the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras- 33 to 35 held as under:-

¶34

“ 33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.

¶35

4

¶36

34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)17]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.

¶37

35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a dailywage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied.”

¶38

The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the earlier view in the matters of District Development Officer & Anr. v. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298 ; Hari Nandan Prasad and Anr. v. Employer I/R Management of Food Corporation of India & Anr., (2014) 7 SCC 190 ; Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 85 and State of Uttrakhand & Another vs. Rajkumar, (2019) 14 SCC 353 .

¶39

Thus, a similar issue as involved in the instant case has been considered by the Apex Court in afore-cited judgments. If the

¶40

5

¶41

employment of a daily wage worker has been terminated illegally because of the procedural defects of the ID Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court is consistent in taking a view that in such cases, reinstatement would not be automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation, which will meet the ends of justice. The rationale for shifting in this direction has been considered by the Apex Court holding that even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation and following other procedures. Since such a workman was working on a daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization and when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wage worker, no useful purpose would be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court.

¶42

Applying the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-cited cases to the facts of the present case, I do not find any ground showing that the employment of petitioners was terminated by the respondents / State by playing unfair labour practice or any exceptional circumstances, as has been considered by the Apex Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra).

¶43

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in lieu of reinstatement, the petitioners would be entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.02 lakhs each. The award passed by the learned Labour Court is modified up to the extent indicated above.

¶44

6

¶45

vatti

¶46

The respondents are directed to make payment of the enhanced compensation preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the petition is disposed of . No Costs.

¶48

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

Bharatlal Yadav v. Jal Sansadhan Vibhag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatlal Yadav v. Jal Sansadhan Vibhag

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Producin Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bank of Baroda, Vs District Magistrate

Siddharth Shukla Vs Tarkeshwari Shukla

Ashok Tiwari Vs Sunil Kumar Tiwari

Gyaneshwar Sen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kailash God Vs Nageshwar