- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent workmen were engaged by the appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), as casual labourers on daily wages during 1984–1985. Their services were terminated in 1986 without notice or retrenchment compensation owing to non-availability of work. Five years later, in 1991, the workmen raised an industrial dispute. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, which on 27 May 2005 ordered their reinstatement on the same posts they had held at termination.
BSNL challenged the award through writ petitions before the High Court, but the High Court dismissed the petitions. BSNL then appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the case of daily-wage workers whose retrenchment violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the appropriate relief is reinstatement or monetary compensation.
- Whether the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement, affirmed by the High Court, should be set aside on appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted its own “catena of decisions” establishing that, although an order of retrenchment made in violation of Section 25-F may be invalidated, reinstatement is not an automatic or appropriate remedy for daily-wage or casual workers. The Court drew a clear distinction between such workers—who do not hold a permanent post—and regular employees.
Applying this principle, the Court observed that the respondents had worked only as casual labourers and merely for more than 240 days. In that context, reinstatement was deemed unjustified and a monetary award was considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
Holding and Implications
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment and Labour Court award set aside. The Court directed BSNL to pay each respondent ₹2 lakh within six weeks, failing which the amount would accrue interest at 12% per annum. Each party is to bear its own costs.
Implications: The decision reiterates the Supreme Court’s established approach that, for daily-wage workers retrenched in violation of Section 25-F, monetary compensation rather than reinstatement is generally the appropriate relief. No new legal precedent was created beyond reaffirming this existing principle.
Order
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The respondent workmen worked with the appellant as casual labourers on daily wages during the year 1984-1985. Due to non-availability of work, their services were terminated in the year 1986. No notice or retrenchment compensation was given to them before terminating their services. After about five years, they raised an industrial dispute in the year 1991. The appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide its award dated 27-5-2005 ordered reinstatement of the respondent workmen on the same post which they were holding at the time of their termination.
3. The award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the Department by filing writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of this case, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Department. The appellant is thus before this Court.
4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.
5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as “daily wagers” and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice.
6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court as also the award dated 27-5-2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. We direct the appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs 2 lakhs to each of the respondents in full and final settlement of their claim, within six weeks from today. In case the payment is not made within the aforementioned stipulated time, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
7. These appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Alert