Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Through Its Secretary, Anand Nagar v. Arvind Chaubey And Another

Supreme Court Of India

Sep 9, 1999

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

In CA No. 5424 of 1997, the appellant Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti challenged an Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow award (Adjudication Case No. 13 of 1985) directing reinstatement with back wages in favour of Respondent 1 (workman). The appellant’s writ petition before the High Court was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

In CAs Nos. 5011-12 of 1999 (arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 4677-78 of 1998), delay was condoned and leave was granted. The impugned orders directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages as a regular employee; these orders had been confirmed by the High Court in writ and review.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant could contend, at the appellate stage, that the Mandi Samiti is not an “industry” governed by the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when that contention was not raised before the Industrial Tribunal.
Whether and to what extent back wages should be denied due to the workman’s delay in raising the industrial dispute between 21-2-1976 and 13-11-1982.
Whether, on the peculiar facts of the later appeals, the Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with orders regularising Respondent 1 and granting continuity and back wages.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant Mandi Samiti is not an “industry” governed by the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The High Court rejected this contention on the basis that it had not been canvassed before the Industrial Tribunal and by following an earlier decision of another Bench.
Back wages should not be payable for the period from 21-2-1976 (termination) to 13-11-1982 (when reference was sought) because the workman delayed raising the dispute for seven years.
During the relevant period, Respondent 1 was allegedly running a commission agency business.
In the later appeals, the appellant sought to contend that Respondent 1 should be treated as a temporary peon rather than a regular employee.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

CA No. 5424 of 1997: The Court noted the High Court’s view that the “not an industry” contention was not available to the appellant at the writ/appellate stage because it had not been raised before the Industrial Tribunal. On back wages, the Court focused on the undisputed delay: after termination on 21-2-1976, Respondent 1 did not raise an industrial dispute until 13-11-1982. The Court held that, for reasons best known to the workman, this inaction disentitled him to back wages for the delayed period, and it modified the award accordingly while otherwise maintaining the reinstatement and remaining reliefs.

CAs Nos. 5011-12 of 1999: The Court declined to interfere under Article 136 “on the peculiar facts and circumstances.” It relied on the circumstance that Respondent 1 had been continuing for more than 16 years; therefore, it was “too late in the day” for the appellant to argue that he should be treated as a temporary peon. Accordingly, no relief was granted and compliance was directed.

Holding and Implications

CA No. 5424 of 1997: PARTLY ALLOWED. The reinstatement/back-wages direction was upheld, but modified to deny back wages from 21-2-1976 to 13-11-1982. Back wages from 13-11-1982 onward were directed to be paid within three months. No costs.

CAs Nos. 5011-12 of 1999: DISMISSED. Delay was condoned and leave granted, but the Court refused to interfere under Article 136 and directed the appellant to comply with the Labour Court order as confirmed by the High Court and by the Court in these proceedings. No costs.

The direct effect was to (i) limit Respondent 1’s monetary relief in CA No. 5424 of 1997 due to delay in raising the dispute, while maintaining reinstatement, and (ii) uphold reinstatement/regularisation-related relief in the later appeals due to long continuation in service. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set.

Show all summary ...

Order

CA No. 5424 of 1997

1. In this appeal, the appellant Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti has brought in challenge the order of reinstatement with back wages as passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow in Adjudication Case No. 13 of 1985 by which an order was passed in favour of Respondent 1 workman. The matter was carried in writ petition before the High Court. However, the writ petition came to be dismissed. That is how the appellant Mandi Samiti is in appeal before us.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant Mandi Samiti is not an “industry” governed by the provisions of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court has held against the appellant on the ground that such a contention was not canvassed before the Industrial Tribunal and also following an earlier decision of another Bench, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Once the appellant did not raise such a contention before the Industrial Tribunal, it was not available to be canvassed higher up.

3. So far as the payment of back wages is concerned, it was submitted that Respondent 1 was removed from service on 21-2-1976 and he did not raise any dispute till expiry of seven years and only on 13-11-1982 he sought a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and as such at least for this period, he was not entitled to any back wages as delay was caused by him alone and for the delay he cannot make the appellant Mandi Samiti to pay the back wages. It was also submitted that during the relevant period Respondent 1 was having a commission agency business. Be that as it may, in our view, after the termination of his service on 21-2-1976, Respondent 1 himself for reasons best known to him did not think it fit to raise an industrial dispute at least from 21-2-1976 till 13-11-1982. He is not entitled to any back wages for that period. Only on this short ground, the appeal is accordingly allowed. The order regarding payment of back wages is confirmed subject to the modification that from 21-2-1976 to 13-11-1982 Respondent 1 will not be entitled to any back wages. The rest of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and as confirmed by the High Court is obviously maintained. The back wages payable to Respondent 1 from 13-11-1982 as directed by us on due calculation will have to be paid by the appellant to Respondent 1 within three months from today. The appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

CAs Nos. 5011-12 of 1999 [arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 4677-78 of 1998]

4. Delay condoned.

5. Leave granted.

6. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Respondent 1 who was a peon working on daily wages of Rs 7 per day since the year 1983 onwards was removed from service. He was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages as a regular employee. The said decision of the Labour Court was confirmed by the High Court in writ petition as well as in the review proceedings. In view of the fact that Respondent 1 is found to be continuing for more than 16 years, it is too late in the day for the appellant to contend before us that he should be treated as a temporary peon. Hence, on these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no relief could be granted to the appellant. The appellant Mandi Samiti is directed to comply with the order of the Labour Court as confirmed by the High Court and by us in the present proceedings. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.