Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Union Of India And Others v. Ramchander And Another

Supreme Court Of India

Oct 6, 2004

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Union of India challenged a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 12-1-2001. The respondents were engaged as casual labourers (mazdoors) in Army stores headquartered at Jodhpur. They were appointed on daily wages for fixed periods of 89 days, terminated upon completion, and then reappointed shortly thereafter, in four spells. Their pay evolved from Rs 750 per month plus allowances to Rs 35 per day, later Rs 40 per day.

Upon the first termination on 11-1-1995, the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, contending that intermittent terminations prevented them from completing 240 days of service and that their termination violated Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal denied relief. The respondents then filed writ petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench), which directed their reinstatement with effect from 31-3-2001 and payment of pay and allowances for the period they were out of service. The Union of India appealed that order. In SLP (C) No. 1493 of 2002, delay was condoned and leave was granted.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the practice of terminating and immediately reappointing the respondents in successive 89-day spells, thereby preventing completion of 240 days of continuous service, violated Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (and as contended by the respondents, Section 25-F).
Whether the respondents had any right to reinstatement when their original appointments were for fixed 89-day periods.
Whether the High Court’s direction to pay the respondents the entire salaries and allowances for the period they were out of service was justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Union of India) Arguments

The respondents were appointed as casual labourers for fixed periods of 89 days.
Upon completion of the 89-day term, they had no right to reinstatement.

Respondents' Arguments

They were appointed against selection posts, were sponsored by the employment exchange, and underwent medical examination.
The termination orders were designed to ensure they did not complete 240 days of service, thus offending Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that although the respondents were engaged as casual labourers, they were employed in four successive spells, with reappointments occurring shortly after each 89-day termination. This pattern demonstrated that sufficient work was available and that, but for the 89-day terminations, the respondents would have completed 240 days of continuous employment. On these facts, the Court held that Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act was violated.

Finding no error or illegality in the High Court’s conclusion on the unlawfulness of the terminations, the Court nonetheless modified the relief. The High Court’s direction to pay full salaries and allowances for the entire intervening period was deemed unjustified. The Court emphasized the considerable lapse of time since the 11-1-1995 termination and observed that the respondents must have been engaged in other employment in the meantime. Consequently, it limited back wages to 50% from the date of termination until re-employment and directed that the respondents be re-employed as daily-wagers.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Delay condoned; leave granted. The appeals were DISPOSED OF with directions: (i) the appellants shall re-employ the respondents as daily-wagers within one month; (ii) the respondents are entitled to 50% back wages from 11-1-1995 until re-employment; (iii) the High Court’s award of full back wages was set aside to that extent; (iv) no costs.

Implications: The respondents receive re-employment as daily-wagers and partial back wages. The High Court’s finding of illegality was effectively affirmed, but monetary relief was curtailed. The order appears case-specific and sets no new precedent beyond the application of Section 25-G to the established facts.

Show all summary ...

Order

1. Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP (C) No. 1493 of 2002.

2. The Union of India has challenged the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan passed on 12-1-2001. The respondents in these appeals were appointed as casual labourers (mazdoors) in the stores maintained by the Army having headquarters at Jodhpur. Initially these respondents were appointed on daily wages for a period of 89 days and on completion of the period, they were terminated from service and again they were appointed as casual labourers immediately after their termination and thus they were terminated and reappointed in four spells. Originally their salary was fixed at Rs 750 per month plus allowances and thereafter it was raised to Rs 35 per day and later to Rs 40 per day. When their services were first terminated on 11-1-1995, they challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jodhpur. The respondents contended that they would have completed the requisite 240 days but for the intermittent termination of their services and therefore their termination was violative of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Central Administrative Tribunal did not accept this plea and refused to grant any relief. Aggrieved by that order the respondents preferred writ petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur and by the impugned judgment the High Court directed that they shall be reinstated in service with effect from 31-3-2001 and further directed that the pay and allowances due to them shall be paid for the period they were out of service. That order is under challenge before this Court.

3. We have heard the appellant's counsel and also the counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents were appointed as casual labourers for a period of 89 days and they had no right to be reinstated in service as they had completed 89 days, the period for which they were appointed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contended that they were appointed as against the selection posts and they were also sponsored by the employment exchange and they had also undergone medical examination and that the termination orders served on the respondents were to see only that these respondents did not continue in service for a period of 240 days.

4. The respondents were appointed against casual labourers but nevertheless they continued in service for four spells and that too their reappointments were made immediately within a few days of termination on completion of 89 days. It shows that sufficient work was available with the employer and had there been no termination on completion of 89 days, they would have completed 240 days of continuous employment. In that view of the matter the appellants had violated Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. We do not find any error or illegality in the decision rendered by the Division Bench. We direct the appellants to re-employ the respondents as daily-wagers. However, the direction of the High Court for payment of entire salaries and allowances for the period they were out of service was not justified under the circumstances. The termination of the respondents was from 11-1-1995 and now a fairly long period has passed and in the meantime, the respondents must have been engaged in employment in any other work. Therefore, we direct the appellants to re-employ the respondents with 50% back wages from the date of their termination till their re-employment. The appellants shall re-employ the respondents within a period of one month. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs.