- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rattan Singh v. Union Of India And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Rattan Singh, served as a workman/head workman on a daily-wage basis in the Telephone Department, Sub-Division, Kurukshetra, from 23-10-1972 to 10-8-1976, after which his services were discontinued. He filed a civil suit before the Sub-Judge, Third Class, Ambala City, seeking a declaration that the termination order was null and void. The trial court dismissed the suit on 25-2-1982.
On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Ambala, by judgment dated 22-1-1985, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court for evidence on an additional issue concerning whether one month's written notice under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was required before termination, and with what effect. In second appeal, the High Court on 5-8-1985 set aside the remand, holding that upon framing an additional issue the proper course was to seek a report under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC and then decide the appeal on merits. The High Court directed the lower appellate court to call for such a report and determine the appeal accordingly.
After the constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under the Administrative Tribunals Act, the pending appeal was transferred to the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, which disposed of the matter on 19-9-1986. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention under the Industrial Disputes Act, observing that he had admitted the absence of an appointment letter and his status as a daily-rated casual worker, and concluded he was a simple daily-rated worker.
In the present decision, the court considered whether the appellant, who had worked for more than 240 days in a year and was a workman, was entitled to protection under Section 25-F despite being daily-rated, and the consequences of non-compliance with that provision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a daily-rated workman who has worked for more than 240 days in a year is entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether the appellant’s termination, in the absence of compliance with Section 25-F, could be sustained.
- What the appropriate relief should be, given the significant lapse of time since termination (reinstatement versus monetary compensation).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Daily-rated status does not exclude a worker from the protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- The first appellate court’s judgment dated 22-1-1985 records that the appellant, admittedly a workman, had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year.
- Termination without complying with Section 25-F was unlawful.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
- The court examined the dates recorded in the first appellate court’s judgment (22-1-1985) and concluded that the appellant had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year.
- Given his status as a workman, the appellant was entitled to the protections of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court expressly held that these protections cannot be denied merely because the worker was daily-rated.
- The court noted that the respondents did not assert that Section 25-F had been complied with at the time of termination.
- In the absence of compliance with Section 25-F, the termination could not be upheld and therefore had to be set aside.
- On the question of relief, the court took into account that the termination occurred in 1976 and nearly 20 years had elapsed. Considering this lapse of time, the court declined to order reinstatement.
- Instead, the court fashioned a monetary remedy: a consolidated sum of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the appellant in full and final settlement of all claims, covering both back wages and the relief in lieu of reinstatement, with payment to be made within two months.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The termination of the appellant’s services was set aside for non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Instead of reinstatement, the court awarded a consolidated compensation of Rs 25,000, payable within two months, in full and final settlement of all claims. The appeal was DISPOSED OF with no order as to costs.
Implications: For the parties, the appellant obtains monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, and the respondents must pay within the specified timeline. The court affirmed that daily-rated status does not negate the applicability of Section 25-F to a workman who has worked for more than 240 days; however, the opinion does not articulate broader implications beyond the case-specific relief, and it sets no additional precedent beyond its application of the statutory protection to the facts at hand.
Order
1. The appellant, Rattan Singh, was employed as workman/head workman in Telephone Department, Sub-Division, Kurukshetra on daily-wage basis. His case is that he had worked during the period from 23-10-1972 till 10-8-1976 and thereafter his services were discontinued. He filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Third Class, Ambala city for a declaration that the order terminating the services of the appellant was null and void. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court by judgment dated 25-2-1982. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, by judgment dated 22-1-1985, and the case was remanded to the trial court to record evidence on the additional issue framed by the appellate court and decide the matter in accordance with law. The said additional issue related to the question whether the department was duty-bound to give one month's notice in writing to the appellant before terminating his services as required by law under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and, if so, to what effect. The High Court, in second appeal, vide judgment dated 5-8-1985, set aside the said order of the Additional District Judge on the view that if the additional issue was framed the decree of the trial court could not be set aside on this ground alone and that the only course open to the appellate court was to send for the report on the said issue from the trial court as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC. The High Court, therefore, directed that the lower appellate court would send for a report on the issue framed and then decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. By virtue of the said order passed by the High Court, the appeal of the appellant stood revived before the Additional District Judge. While the said appeal was pending, the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) was constituted under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the said appeal was transferred to the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. The matter was disposed of by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 19-9-1986. The Tribunal has rejected the contention urged by the appellant that since the appellant had worked continuously for four years, his services could not be terminated and he should have been paid retrenchment compensation under the Act. The Tribunal has observed that the appellant has admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him and he has also admitted that he was a daily-rated casual worker and, in view of the said submissions made by the appellant, it could be safely concluded that the appellant was a simple daily-rated worker.
2. Shri S.M Ashri, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that merely because the appellant was a daily-rated worker does not mean that he is not entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act. Shri Ashri has invited our attention to the judgment of the first appellate court dated 22-1-1985 wherein it is recorded that admittedly the appellant was a workman and he has served the Telephone Department on the dates mentioned in the said judgment which shows that the appellant has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year. The submission of Shri Ashri is that the termination of the services of the appellant was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.
3. We find merit in the said submission of Shri Ashri. From the dates mentioned in the judgment of the first appellate court dated 22-1-1985, it appears that the appellant had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year. Since he was a workman, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act and the said protection could not be denied to him on the ground that he was a daily-rated worker. It is not the case of the respondents that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were complied with while terminating the services of the appellant. In these circumstances, the termination of services of the appellant cannot be upheld and has to be set aside. The services of the appellant were terminated in the year 1976. Nearly 20 years have elapsed since then. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to direct reinstatement of the appellant. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that a consolidated sum of Rs 25,000 be paid to the appellant in lieu of compensation for back wages as well as reinstatement. This amount is being paid in full and final settlement of all the claims of the appellant. The said amount shall be paid within two months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Alert