Ranbir Kumar Singh Vs M/S Usha International Ltd. And O

2025:JHHC:36435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 1523 of 2011

Ranbir Kumar Singh, Son of Late Jodhan Prasad Singh, Resident of Village-Majlispur, P.O. Alipur, P.S. Mahner, District-Vaishali (Bihar) .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

M/s. Usha International Ltd., an enterprise of Sri Ram Group, Surya Kiran Building, 19 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

¶6

The Vice President (O&P) Department, Usha International Ltd., an enterprise of Sri Ram Group, Surya Kiran Building, 19 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

¶7

The Divisional Manager, Usha International Ltd., First Floor, Shashi Building, Exhibition Road, Patna.

¶8

The Shop Manager, Usha International Ltd., Lalpur, Ranchi. .... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mrs. M.M.Pal, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Mouha Palit, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, Advocate

¶12

11/04.12.2025

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

2. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated

¶15

20.03.2009, passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, in B.S. Case No. 04 of 2002. The Petitioner claims that he has been denied the relief of reinstatement in service and has been given a paltry compensation of Rs. 53,640, even after holding that the order of dismissal dated 02.01.2002 was improper and unjustified.

¶16

Facts of the Case:

¶17

3. The Petitioner was appointed as a Sales Promotion

¶18

1

¶19

2025:JHHC:36435

¶20

Executive on 24.12.1997 and was working in the shop of the Respondent-Company. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Shop Executive with effect from 12.01.2000.

¶21

However, soon thereafter, he was served with a chargesheet dated 12.03.2001. The Petitioner was accused of charges of dishonesty and taking away company material which was to be given as free gifts to customers. The basis of the charges against this Petitioner was complaints against him, but none of the complainants were examined in the enquiry. Nonetheless, the Petitioner was dismissed from service on 02.01.2002.

¶22

The Petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops & Establishments Act, 1953, read with Rule 21 of the Jharkhand Shops & Establishment Rules, 2002. This case was registered by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi as B.S. Case No. 04 of 2002.

¶23

Issues before the Labour Court:

¶24

4. The Learned Labour Court framed following five issues:

¶25

a. Whether the Petitioner has got a valid cause of action to maintain the petition under Section 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act?

¶26

b. Whether the Petitioner was afforded a full opportunity to defend his case before the Enquiry Officer.

¶27

c. Whether the management has been able to establish the charges of misconduct against the Petitioner without examining the complainant before the Enquiry Officer or before this Court?

¶28

2

¶29

2025:JHHC:36435

¶30

d. Whether the order of dismissal dated 02.01.2002 is illegal, unjustified, and arbitrary?

¶31

e. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get any relief?

¶32

Findings of the Labour Court:

¶33

5. The Labour Court decided and disposed of B.S. Case No. 04 of 2002 by its order dated 28.03.2009 and categorically held that the Management failed to prove the charges; therefore, the dismissal order dated 02.01.2002 is not justified. On the issue of relief, the Labour Court referred to Section 26 (5) (b) of the Bihar Shops & Establishment Act, 1953 and refused to order reinstatement as the employer had lost trust in this Petitioner. While denying the relief of reinstatement, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court awarded compensation which has been computed as the salary payable for the last 12 months.

¶34

The Petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,470 per month and, therefore, he was given compensation of Rs. 53,640/- (Rs. 4470 x 12).

¶35

6 . The Respondents have not challenged the order passed in B.S. Case No. 04 of 2002. A common Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of all the Respondents challenging the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground of delay and laches.

¶36

3

¶37

2025:JHHC:36435

¶38

7. In the Counter Affidavit, the Respondents mention that they have already deposited the compensation of Rs. 53,640/by demand draft bearing no.116503 dated 27.11.2009, drawn on Bank of Baroda, Ranchi, before the Labour Court, Ranchi. The Respondents also rely on the order dated 22.03.2010 by which the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, informed this Petitioner that a demand draft for Rs. 53,640/- has been deposited in the Labour Court, which should be collected or else it would be returned to the Respondents.

¶39

8. After hearing the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner and Ld. Counsel for the Respondents; the limited issue arising for determination in this case is whether the Labour Court ought to have ordered reinstatement in service and/or what should be the quantum of compensation when the relief of reinstatement has been denied.

¶40

9. The power of the Labour Court to grant relief where an application under Section 26 (2) of the Bihar Shops & Establishments Act is entertained and allowed is provided in Sub-Section 5 (b) of Section 26. The Labour Court can order reinstatement in service or compensation or both. Traditionally, Courts have ordered reinstatement as a rule when termination of service was invalidated. Over the last

¶41

4

¶42

2025:JHHC:36435

¶43

decade; however, our judicial trend has shifted. Courts now recognize that "automatic reinstatement" is not always pragmatic or conducive to workplace harmony. This shift has placed the "fixing of money compensation" at the centre of adjudication.

¶44

The following were the factors influencing the shift to compensation:

¶45

(i) Loss of Confidence : In positions involving fiduciary responsibility (cashiers, storekeepers, guards), if the employer has lost confidence—even if the misconduct inquiry was technically defective— Courts prefer to fix compensation; rather than force an unwanted employee back into the establishment.

¶46

(ii) Passage of Time: Employment disputes often drag on for years. Reinstating an employee after a long hiatus is often impractical. The employee may have lost their skills, or taken up other jobs or may even be self-employed.

¶47

(iii) Nature of Appointment: For daily wagers, temporary staff, or those on probation, Courts are reluctant to grant reinstatement, which often implies permanency.

¶48

Furthermore, when a Labour Court orders "money compensation," the quantum usually comprises three distinct heads:

¶49

a. Back Wages: Payment for the period between termination and the date of the order.

¶50

b. Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement: A lump sum representing the loss of future employment tenure.

¶51

c. Interest: A penalty for delayed payment.

¶52

5

¶53

2025:JHHC:36435

¶54

10. In the instant case, the Ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court has awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the employer had taken plea of loss of trust and confidence; in such cases, the award of compensation is the only recourse available to the Labour Court.

¶55

11. However, since the Petitioner has lost his job and livelihood, payment of one year's salary is grossly inadequate. The monetary compensation awarded to an employee whose service was cut short by his employer within five years of his joining should be reasonable and must compensate him suitably. Moreover, the Petitioner contested his termination for several years and eventually succeeded almost nine years after he was dismissed from service.

¶56

12. This aspect was examined way back in the case of Management of the Tata Robin Fraser Ltd. v. Presiding

¶57

Officer , 1995 SCC OnLine Pat 396 : (1996) 1 PLJR 502.

¶58

13. Recently, in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh , reported in (2021) 19 SCC 227, the Hon’ble Apex Court has again dealt almost same and similar issue and awarded lump-sum compensation. For brevity, Para-8 is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶59

“8. The directions issued by the High Court of Allahabad for reinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23-8-2019 [Allahabad Bank v. Krishan Pal Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2061]. During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent workman had attained age of superannuation. Though, there was strong suspicion, there was no acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of

¶60

6

¶61

2025:JHHC:36435

¶62

the workman. However, as the workman has worked only for a period of about six years and he has already attained the age of superannuation, it is a fit case for modification of the relief granted by the High Court. The reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case, where termination/dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedure prescribed under law. Considering that the respondent was in effective service of the Bank only for about six years and he is out of service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had attained age of superannuation, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be met by awarding lump sum monetary compensation . We accordingly direct payment of lump sum compensation of Rs 15 lakhs to the respondent, within a period of eight weeks from today. Failing to pay the same within the aforesaid period, the respondent is entitled for interest @ 6% p.a., till payment .”

¶63

Emphasis Supplied

¶64

14. As stated hereinabove, in the instant case, the paltry sum of Rs. 53,640 is certainly inadequate and ought to be enhanced. The Petitioner has suffered on account of unsubstantial allegations and was kept out of service by the Respondents. The order of dismissal has already been held to be unjustified and has been set aside by the Labour Court. The Petitioner had joined in the year 1997, and his dismissal order dated 02.01.2002 was set aside on 20.03.2009. Thereafter, during pendency of this case, he had also crossed the age of superannuation as his date of birth is 13.10.1963.

¶65

Considering the loss of income for over the years and his five years of service prior to his dismissal, and the continued legal battle till date; the compensation of Rs. 53,640 is too low, unreasonable, and inadequate. The Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to higher compensation.

¶66

15. Accordingly, keeping in mind the observation/direction made in the case of Krishan Pal Singh (Supra) I deem it

¶67

7

¶68

2025:JHHC:36435

¶69

appropriate that ends of justice would be met by awarding lump sum monetary compensation. I, accordingly, direct payment of lump sum compensation of Rs 7.5 lakhs to the respondent, within a period of twelve weeks from today; failing to pay the same within the aforesaid period, the respondent shall also be liable to pay interest on the lumpsum amount of 7.5 Lakh Rs. @ 6% p.a., from the date of this order till payment.

¶70

16. The Respondents claim that they have deposited Rs. 53,640/- in the Labour Court. It has also been informed that deposited amount of Rs. 53,640/- in the Labour Court by the Respondents has not been received by the Petitioner. However, if any amount, already paid to the Petitioner as compensation can be adjusted against the compensation determined hereinabove.

¶71

17. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶72

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶73

04.12.2025

¶74

Amardeep/N . A . F . R .

¶75