- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents (fourteen workmen) were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Bhopal and engaged as casual labourers in the Central/District Telegraph Office, Bhopal in 1985. They worked continuously until 10-02-1987, completing more than 240 days of service in each year. On that date their services were discontinued with a direction to report to the office of AE (Cables) CTX, Bhopal. The workmen asserted that they did report but were denied work because of alleged non-availability of vacancies; the employer claimed the workmen never reported and had abandoned service.
After unsuccessful approaches to the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court (on jurisdictional grounds), the dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held the termination illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ordered reinstatement with back wages and 8% interest. The High Court dismissed the employer’s writ petition. The present appeal by special leave challenges that relief before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the employees’ termination on 10-02-1987 constituted illegal retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- If the termination was illegal, whether the appropriate relief should be reinstatement with full back wages or, instead, monetary compensation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The Central Telegraph Office/District Telegraph Office was part of the Post & Telegraph Department and therefore not an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act (a contention raised for the first time before the Supreme Court).
- The order dated 10-02-1987 did not terminate services; it merely redeployed the workmen to the office of AE (Cables) CTX, Bhopal. The workmen failed to join there and thus abandoned service.
- Assuming the termination was illegal, reinstatement with back wages was unjustified given the nature and duration of employment; at most, monetary compensation should be awarded.
Workmen’s Position
- They reported to the redeployment office but were refused work; hence the termination was unilateral and illegal.
- They had each completed over 240 days of service per year, triggering the protections of Section 25-F which the employer failed to observe.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 | Relief of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic despite illegal termination. | Supported awarding compensation instead of reinstatement. |
| Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353 | Compensation may be appropriate in lieu of reinstatement for daily wagers. | Relied on to substitute monetary relief. |
| State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575 | Shift in jurisprudence towards compensation rather than reinstatement. | Reinforced that reinstatement is discretionary. |
| Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748 | Compensation can meet ends of justice where employment was short-term. | Cited to justify lump-sum compensation. |
| Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute (2008) 5 SCC 75 | Reinstatement may be unsuitable for casual/daily rated employees. | Used to deny reinstatement to the workmen. |
| Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai (2006) 11 SCC 684 | Preference for monetary compensation in similar factual settings. | Added persuasive weight against reinstatement. |
| GDA v. Ashok Kumar (2008) 4 SCC 261 | Clarified that compensation serves justice where long time has elapsed. | Influenced the quantum and form of relief. |
| Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575 | Illegal retrenchment does not mandate reinstatement with back wages. | Further authority for substituting compensation. |
| Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 | Summarised the recent trend limiting reinstatement and favouring compensation. | Quoted extensively; formed the doctrinal basis for present decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court declined to entertain the new contention that the Post and Telegraph Department is not an “industry” because it was never raised before either the Tribunal or the High Court. On the factual issue of alleged abandonment, it accepted the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and High Court that the workmen did not abandon service.
The core of the analysis centred on the appropriate remedy for an illegal termination. After reviewing a “catena of decisions” demonstrating a jurisprudential shift, the Court found that reinstatement with back wages is no longer an automatic consequence of an unfair retrenchment, particularly for daily-rated employees who neither hold permanent posts nor have lengthy tenures. The respondents had been engaged as casual labourers more than 25 years earlier and had worked only two to three years; ordering reinstatement now would be disproportionate and impractical. Consistent with the cited precedents, a lump-sum monetary compensation was considered to “subserve the ends of justice.”
Holding and Implications
HELD: The appeal is allowed in part. The orders directing reinstatement with back wages are set aside. The employer shall pay each of the fourteen workmen a compensation of Rs 40,000 within six weeks, failing which the amount will accrue interest at 9% per annum. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision reinforces the Supreme Court’s continuing trend to substitute monetary compensation for reinstatement where the employment was casual, short-term, and the passage of time makes reinstatement impractical. It does not create new legal doctrine but consolidates existing precedent, signalling to lower courts and tribunals that reinstatement should not be granted by default in similar circumstances.
R.M Lodha, J.— Leave granted. The main question is whether the relief of reinstatement and back wages granted to Respondents 1 to 14 (for short “the workmen”) is justified.
2. The facts leading up to this appeal by special leave are few and simple. The workmen were enrolled with the District Employment Exchange, Bhopal. On a requisition made by the Senior Superintendent of Telegraph (Traffic) to the District Employment Exchange, the names of the workmen were sponsored and they were engaged as casual labourers in 1985 in the Central Telegraph Office/District Telegraph Office, Bhopal. They continued as such up to 10-2-1987. During this period, the workmen had completed 240 days in each year. Vide order dated 10-2-1987, the services of the workmen were discontinued in the Central Telegraph Office/District Telegraph Office and they were asked to report in the office of AE (Cables) CTX, Bhopal.
3. The case of the workmen is that they reported in the office of AE (Cables) CTX, Bhopal but they were not taken on duty on the pretext that there were no vacancies. On the other hand, the appellant claims that the workmen did not report for duty in the office of the AE (Cables) CTX, Bhopal and abandoned their job. The workmen initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and then the High Court for redressal of their grievance but no relief was granted to them as the controversy related to industrial dispute. The workmen, consequently, raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”).
4. The Tribunal on the basis of the case set up by the parties and the evidence on record held that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a year for nearly 3 years and that their services were retrenched by an order dated 10-2-1987 without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the ID Act”). The Tribunal did not accept the plea of the appellant that on their redeployment, the workmen abandoned their service.
5. The Tribunal, accordingly, by its award dated 8-8-2003 directed the appellant to reinstate the workmen and pay them back wages from the date of termination until the date of reinstatement within 3 months of the publication of the award and upon the appellant's failure to comply with the award within the stipulated period, it was directed that interest at the rate of 8% per annum shall be payable. The appellant challenged the said award before the High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed on 9-11-2005.
6. Mr R.D Agrawala, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the erstwhile Central Telegraph Office/District Telegraph Office, Bhopal where the workmen were engaged was an establishment of the Post and Telegraph Department, Government of India and, therefore, it was not an “industry” under the ID Act. He, however, did not dispute that this plea was not raised by the appellant in reply before the Tribunal. No such point was argued before the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, even before the High Court, no such plea was raised in the writ petition nor argued on behalf of the appellant. In the circumstances, we do not deem it appropriate to permit the appellant to raise this plea for the first time in this appeal.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant then submitted that vide order dated 10-2-1987, the services of the workmen were not terminated but they were redeployed in the office of AE (Cables) CTX, Bhopal; the workmen, however, did not join their duty there and they abandoned their service. The Tribunal referred to the cross-examination of the appellant's witness Shri A.K Saxena in this regard and did not find any merit in this submission. The High Court found no justification to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. We have no justifiable reason to take a different view on facts found by the Tribunal.
8. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if the order dated 10-2-1987 amounts to illegal termination for want of compliance with Section 25-F of the ID Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reinstatement and back wages was not justified and at best monetary compensation to the workmen could have been awarded.
9. In the last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate. (See U.P State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C Joshi (2007) 9 SCC 353, State of M.P v. Lalit Kumar Verma (2007) 1 SCC 575, M.P Admn. v. Tribhuban (2007) 9 SCC 748, Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute (2008) 5 SCC 75, Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai (2006) 11 SCC 684, GDA v. Ashok Kumar (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula (2008) 1 SCC 575.)
10. In a recent judgment authored by one of us (R.M Lodha, J.) in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327, the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated:( & 335, paras 7 & 14)
“7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.
14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.”
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. In our considered view, the compensation of Rs 40,000 to each of the workmen (Respondents 1 to 14) shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
12. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent with no order as to costs.
Alert