1

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rammohan Reddy,

Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka

List of Decisions on Labour Laws

Sl.
Parties Name and Citations Proposition
No.

1. State of U.P. v. Om Pal Singh To sustain the award of back wages in

the facts of the present case.
(2016) 16 SCC 584 Therefore, the award is modified only
to the extent that the first respondent
shall not be entitled for the back
wages for the period he was not
actually in service and for all other
purposes his services shall be treated
as continuous.

(Relevant Paras are 3 and 4 and 6 to

8)
2. Talwara Coop. Credit and Grant of a relief of reinstatement, it is
Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil trite, is not automatic. Grant of back
Kumar wages is also not automatic. The
Industrial Courts while exercising
(2008) 9 SCC 486 their power under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are
required to strike a balance in a
situation of this nature. For the said
purpose, certain relevant factors, as
for example, nature of service, the
mode and manner of recruitment viz.
whether the appointment had been
made in accordance with the statutory
rules so far as a public sector
undertaking is concerned, etc., should
be taken into consideration.
(Relevant Paras are 15, 8, 12 and
13)
 2

3. Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Due to some exigency of work,

Panchayat, Gajraula although recruitment on daily wages
or on an ad hoc basis was permissible,
(2008) 1 SCC 575 but by reason thereof an employee
cannot claim any right to be
permanently absorbed in service or
made permanent in absence of any
statute or statutory rules. Merely
because an employee has completed
240 days of work in a year preceding
the date of retrenchment, the same
would not mean that his services were
liable to be regularised. (Para 9)

It is now well settled by a catena of

decisions of this Court that in a
situation of this nature instead and in
place of directing reinstatement with
full back wages, the workmen should
be granted adequate monetary
compensation. (See M.P.
Admn. v. Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748
: (2007) 5 Scale 397] (Para 12)
4. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad There were no sanctioned posts in
v. Anil Kumar Mishra existence to which they could be said
to have been appointed. The
(2005) 5 SCC 122 assignment was an ad hoc one which
anticipatedly spent itself out. It is
difficult to envisage for them the
status of workmen on the analogy of
the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, importing the
incidents of completion of 240 days'
work. The legal consequences that flow
from work for that duration under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are
entirely different from what, by way of
implication, is attributed to the
present situation by way of analogy.
 3

The completion of 240 days' work does

not, under that law import the right to
regularisation. It merely imposes
certain obligations on the employer at
the time of termination of the service.
It is not appropriate to import and
apply that analogy, in an extended or
enlarged form here. (Para 5 & 8)
5. U.P. State Coop. Land The respondent-workmen were every
Development Bank Ltd. v. Taz time employed at a time for only three
Mulk Ansari months and their last employment was
only for 17 days. Their service was to
1994 Supp (2) SCC 745 come to an end on the expiry of the
said 17 days. In view of the proviso to
clause (a) of Section 6-N no notice for
terminating their service was
necessary. The termination of their
services is, therefore, valid. (Para 2 &
3)
6. Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens The question as to whether an
Ltd. employee had intermittently been
engaged as casual or temporary for a
(2007) 1 SCC 533 number of years is essentially a
question of fact. The issue as to
whether unfair labour practices had
been resorted to by the employer or
not must be judged from the entirety
of the circumstances brought on
record by the parties. (Para 23)

Only because an employee has been

engaged as a casual or temporary
employee or that he had been
employed for a number of years, the
same by itself may not lead to the
conclusion that such appointment had
been made with the object of depriving
him of the status and privilege of a
permanent employee. Unlike other
 4

statutes, the employer does not have

any statutory liability to give
permanent status to an employee on
completion of a period specified
therein. What is, therefore, necessary
to be considered for drawing an
inference in terms of the said
provisions would be to consider the
entire facts and circumstances of the
case. (Para 24)
7. L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N. ‘The courts below by condoning an act
Udayakumar of physical violence have undermined
the discipline in the organisation,
(2008) 1 SCC 224 hence, in the above factual backdrop,
it can never be said that the Industrial
Tribunal could have exercised its
authority under Section 11-A of the
Act to interfere with the punishment of
dismissal.’ ”(Para 8 & 12)
8. RBI v. S. Mani In law, 240 days of continuous service
by itself does not give rise to claim of
(2005) 5 SCC 100 permanence. Section 25-F provides for
grant of compensation if a workman is
sought to be retrenched in violation of
the conditions referred to therein.
(See Maharashtra State Coop. Cotton
Growers' Marketing Federa-tion
Ltd. [1994 Supp (3) SCC 385 : 1995
SCC (L&S) 36] See also Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar
Mishra [AIR 1994 SC 1638 : (2005) 5
SCC 122] .)
(Relevant Paras 9, 54, 50, 53, 48,
46, 28, 30,31,34,36,35, 18 to 20,
37, 56,24, 25, 22, 21, 23, 27, 38,
12, 15, 39, 42 to44 & 57)
 5

9. HAL Employees' Union v. Regards illegal strike and payment of

Presiding Officer wages for that period was considered
by this Court in Syndicate Bank v. K.
(1996) 4 SCC 223 Umesh Nayak [(1994) 5 SCC 572 :
1994 SCC (L&S) 1197 : (1994) 28 ATC
146] by a Constitution Bench. It was
held that “no-work no-pay” is the
principle applicable to public utility
services; wages during strike period
would be payable only if the strike is
both legal and justified but not
payable if strike is legal but not
justified or justified but illegal. The
strike may be of different forms like
go-slow, work to rule, refusal to work
overtime, irritation strike etc. We are
bound by the ratio of the said
Constitution Bench judgment which
applies to declaration of the lockout
which is the consequence of illegal
strike organised by the workmen. The
lockout is both legal and justified in
the present case. As a result, the
workmen are not entitled to the
payment of wages for the period
during which the lockout continued.
(Para 5)
10. Bangalore Metropolitan What has been stated in Karnataka
Transport Corpn. v. T.V. SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa [(2005) 3 SCC
Anandappa 409 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 484] the
respondent had no right under the
(2009) 17 SCC 473 Act. The Labour Court should not have
therefore adjudicated the dispute. In
essence, the reference made to the
Labour Court was incompetent. (Para
1 & 8)
 6

11. Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. The status of a Badli cannot be better

Kotturappa than a probationer. If the services of
the probationer can be terminated for
(2005) 3 SCC 409 not being able to complete the period
of probation satisfactorily, there is no
reason as to why the same standard
cannot be held to be applicable in the
case of Badli worker. (Para 25)
12. State of Uttarakhand v. Raj Here is also a case where the
Kumar respondent claimed to have worked as
daily wager hardly for a period of one
(2019) 14 SCC 353 year or so in PWD of the State;
secondly, he had no right to claim
regularisation; thirdly, he had no right
to continue as daily wager and lastly,
the dispute was raised by the
respondent (workman) almost after 25
years of the alleged termination before
the Labour Court. (Para 11)

It is for these reasons, we are of the

view that the case of the respondent
would squarely fall in the category of
cases discussed by this Court in para
34 of the judgment rendered
in BSNL [BSNL v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7
SCC 177 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 373]
(Para 12)

In view of the forgoing discussion, we

are of the considered view that it
would be just, proper and reasonable
to award lump sum monetary
compensation to the respondent in full
and final satisfaction of his claim of
reinstatement and other consequential
benefits by taking recourse to the
powers under Section 11-A of the Act
and the law laid down by this Court
 7

in BSNL case [BSNL v. Bhurumal,

(2014) 7 SCC 177 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S)
373].(Para 13)
13. State of Haryana v. Dilbagh The Tribunal has found violation of
Singh Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act.
This finding of fact has not been
(2006) 10 SCC 326 controverted by the management and
there is no reason to take a different
view from the view taken by the
Tribunal which was affirmed by the
High Court. Hence, we find no merit in
this appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed. The respondent
shall be reinstated but looking into the
peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, he will not be entitled to any
back wages. The appellant shall issue
order of appointment of the
respondent within one month from the
date of receipt of this order. (Para 3)
14. National Thermal Power Jawahar Lal had completed more
Corpn. v. Jawahar Lal than 240 days' continuous service in
one calendar year. The said conclusion
(2007) 10 SCC 240 was arrived at without any basis. The
Labour Court had also not offered any
basis for coming to such conclusion
further. The finding of the Labour
Court that no alternative job was
offered was accepted by the High
Court. This is on the face of the
material placed on record to show that
he was offered alternative employment.
The applicant Jawahar Lal in his
counter-affidavit before this Court has
accepted that the alternative
employment offered was with the
contractor, and therefore he did not
accept it. (Para 9)
 8

15. Regional Manager, SBI v. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes

Mahatma Mishra Act confers a discretionary power on
the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour
(2006) 13 SCC 727 Court, as the case may be. Although in
a given case, the Industrial Tribunal or
the Labour Court may grant
appropriate relief, its discretion should
be exercised judiciously. An employee
after termination of his services cannot
get a benefit to which he was not
entitled to if he remained in service. It
is one thing to say that services of a
workman was terminated in violation
of mandatory provisions of law but it is
another thing to say that relief of
reinstatement in service with full back
wages would be granted automatically.
Even in a case where service of an
employee is terminated in violation of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, he would not be entitled to grant
of a permanent status. Regularisation
does not mean permanence.
[See Secy., State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .]
(Para 12)
16. Gurmail Singh v. Principal, The back wages are concerned, he will
Govt. College of Education not be entitled to any back wages from
30-9-1981 till 27-2-1989 as he had
(2000) 9 SCC 496 not raised any dispute during that
time. Thereafter from 1-3-1989 till the
date of reinstatement of the present
appellant, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
respondents are directed to pay 50 per
cent of the back wages towards full
and final satisfaction of appellant's
claim regarding back wages. This
 9

amount shall be calculated and paid to

the appellant by the respondents
within eight weeks from today. He
shall be reinstated with continuity in
service also within that time. (Para 3)
17. U.P. SEB v. Natwar Singh It is while so serving as an ad hoc
employee, his services were terminated
(2005) 11 SCC 552 without following the requirement of
law under Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act. If that be the
case, then on being found that the ad
hoc employee is entitled to
reinstatement in the same post on the
same pay scale as was being drawn by
him on the date of his termination
other questions like the management
putting him on a particular pay scale
and further regularisation of his
services will not arise. By doing this
the Industrial Tribunal has gone
beyond the scope of the dispute.
(Para 5)
18. South Indian Cashew When enquiry was conducted fairly
Factories Workers' Union v. and properly, in the absence of any of
Kerala State Cashew the allegations of victimisation or mala
fides or unfair labour practice, the
Development Corpn. Ltd.
Labour Court has no power to interfere
(2006) 5 SCC 201 with the punishment imposed by the
management. Since Section 11-A is
not applicable, the Labour Court has
no power to reappraise the evidence to
find out whether the findings of the
enquiry officer are correct or not or
whether the punishment imposed is
adequate or not. Of course, the Labour
Court can interfere with the findings if
the findings are perverse. But, here
there is a clear finding that the
findings are not perverse and
 10

principles of natural justice were

complied with while conducting
enquiry. (Para 16)
19. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity It is now well-settled principle of law
v. Pahal Singh that “delay defeats equity”. (Para 12)

(2007) 12 SCC 193 The Labour Court exercises its wide

jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, but such
jurisdiction must be exercised
judiciously. A relief of reinstatement
with all back wages is not to be given
without considering the relevant
factors therefor, only because it would
be lawful to do so. As noticed
hereinbefore, in this case, even the
basic requirements for grant of any
relief had not been found by the
Labour Court. (Para 13)
20. St. Michael's Teacher's In Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama
Training Institute v. V.N. Sirsi [(2004) 3 SCC 172 : 2004 SCC
Karpaga Mary (L&S) 453] have been rendered in a
different fact situation, namely, the
(2008) 7 SCC 388 jurisdiction of the Labour Court under
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act. The question as to what would be
the relevant factors for the Industrial
Court to grant the said relief need not
be the same for the writ court. For
grant of back wages, this Court has
laid down several principles therefor.
(Para 18)
21. State of Karnataka v. But, sometimes this process is not
Umadevi (3) adhered to and the constitutional
scheme of public employment is
(2006) 4 SCC 1 bypassed. The Union, the States, their
departments and instrumentalities
have resorted to irregular
appointments, especially in the lower
11

rungs of the service, without reference

to the duty to ensure a proper
appointment procedure through the
Public Service Commissions or
otherwise as per the rules adopted and
to permit these irregular appointees or
those appointed on contract or on
daily wages, to continue year after
year, thus, keeping out those who are
qualified to apply for the post
concerned and depriving them of an
opportunity to compete for the post. It
has also led to persons who get
employed, without the following of a
regular procedure or even through the
backdoor or on daily wages,
approaching the courts, seeking
directions to make them permanent in
their posts and to prevent regular
recruitment to the posts concerned.
The courts have not always kept the
legal aspects in mind and have
occasionally even stayed the regular
process of employment being set in
motion and in some cases, even
directed that these illegal, irregular or
improper entrants be absorbed into
service. A class of employment which
can only be called “litigious
employment”, has risen like a phoenix
seriously impairing the constitutional
scheme. Such orders are passed
apparently in exercise of the wide
powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Whether the wide powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution
are intended to be used for a purpose
certain to defeat the concept of social
justice and equal opportunity for all,
12

subject to affirmative action in the

matter of public employment as
recognized by our Constitution, has to
be seriously pondered over. It is time,
that the courts desist from issuing
orders preventing regular selection or
recruitment at the instance of such
persons and from issuing directions
for continuance of those who have not
secured regular appointments as per
procedure established. The passing of
orders for continuance tends to defeat
the very constitutional scheme of
public employment. It has to be
emphasised that this is not the role
envisaged for the High Courts in the
scheme of things and their wide
powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution are not intended to be
used for the purpose of perpetuating
illegalities, irregularities or
improprieties or for scuttling the whole
scheme of public employment. Its role
as the sentinel and as the guardian of
equal rights protection should not be
forgotten.

(Relevant Paras are 20, 51, 5, 14,

10,4,43,45,49,13,45,43,4,12,19,26,
33,13,44,39,33,54,53,1,3,4,12,15 to
17, 6, 2, 11, 41, 2, 38, 41, 49 to
51,48,46,50, 51, 52, 53, 18, 55, 15,
16, 17, 6 & 47)
 13

22. Nagar Mahapalika v. State of This is one of those cases which

U.P. clearly depict as to how the officers of
the local self-government at their own
(2006) 5 SCC 127 whims and caprice have been making
appointments without following the
procedures laid down under the
Adhiniyam. The administrator of a
municipal corporation is a public
servant. He was bound to follow the
provisions of the Adhiniyam and the
rules. It is surprising how the
respondents could be appointed even
prior to creation of the temporary
posts by the State. The appointing
authority has now taken a stand that
the respondents had been appointed
in terms of the order of sanction dated
19-12-1985. The offers of appointment
precede the said date. The
respondents although purported to
have been appointed as apprentices,
were appointed as clerks on daily
wages in the Assessment Department.
Evidently, the provisions of the
Apprentices Act, 1961 have also not
been followed. The officers appeared to
be absolutely ignorant of the
provisions of the said Act. They even
do not know how offers of appointment
should be issued. (Para 16)
23. Official Liquidator v. The creation and abolition of posts,
Dayanand formation and structuring /
restructuring of cadres, prescribing
(2008) 10 SCC 1 the source and mode of recruitment
and qualifications and criteria of
selection, etc. are matters which fall
within the exclusive domain of the
employer. Although the decision of the
employer to create or abolish posts or
 14

cadres or to prescribe the source or

mode of recruitment and laying down
the qualification, etc. is not immune
from judicial review, the Court will
always be extremely cautious and
circumspect in tinkering with the
exercise of discretion by the employer.
The Court cannot sit in appeal over
the judgment of the employer and
ordain that a particular post or
number of posts be created or filled by
a particular mode of recruitment. The
power of judicial review can be
exercised in such matters only if it is
shown that the action of the employer
is contrary to any constitutional or
statutory provisions or is patently
arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides.
(Para 59)
24. Scooters India Ltd. v. Labour It cannot therefore be said that the
Court Labour Court had exercised its powers
under Section 6(2-A) of the Act in an
1989 Supp (1) SCC 31 arbitrary manner and not in a judicial
manner. The Labour Court has taken
the view that justice must be tempered
with mercy and that the erring
workman should be given an
opportunity to reform himself and
prove to be a loyal and disciplined
employee of the petitioner company. It
cannot therefore be said that merely
because the Labour Court had found
the enquiry to be fair and lawful and
the findings not to be vitiated in any
manner, it ought not to have interfered
with the order of termination of service
passed against the respondent in
exercise of its powers under Section
6(2-A) of the Act. (Para 7)
 15

25. U.P. SRTC v. Gopal Shukla In the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are impelled to state that the
(2015) 17 SCC 603 exercise of power under Section 6(2-A)
of the Act by the Labour Court is
absolutely arbitrary and it can be said
without any shadow of doubt that it
has not been exercised in a judicial
manner. Additionally, when we have
further held that the charge pertaining
to personal gain has been established,
the said view gets more support. It is
so, as has been observed in Shobha
Suresh Jumani v. Appellate
Tribunal [Shobha Suresh
Jumani v. Appellate Tribunal, (2001) 5
SCC 755 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1334] that
there is a cancerous growth of
corruption which has affected the
moral standards of people and all
forms of governmental administration.
(Para 24)
26. LIC v. Raghavendra Seshagiri A distinction was drawn again as
Rao Kulkarni between a permanent employee and an
employee appointed on probation
(1997) 8 SCC 461 in Bishan Lal Gupta v. State of
Haryana [(1978) 1 SCC 202 : 1978
SCC (L&S) 55 : AIR 1978 SC 363 :
(1978) 2 SCR 513] . In this case, a
formal enquiry was held merely to
assess the work and conduct of an
employee who was appointed on
probation. It was held that there was
no need either to give notice or to hold
the regular departmental enquiry.
(Para 14)
 16

27. LIC v. R. Suresh LIC is “State” within the meaning of

Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
(2008) 11 SCC 319 Its duties and functions are provided
for under the 1956 Act. The same by
itself, however, having regard to the
definition of “industry” as contained in
Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 cannot take within its
umbrage the functions of Life
Insurance Corporation outside its
purview (sic). (Para 18)
Under the industrial law, and in
particular the 1947 Act, the
authorities specified therein, the
appropriate Governments and the
Industrial Courts have various
functions to perform. Terms and
conditions can be laid down
thereunder. Violations of the terms
and conditions of service are also
justiciable. Safeguards have been
provided under the Act to see that
services of a workman are not unjustly
terminated. The 1947 Act provides for
a wider definition of termination of
service. Conditions precedent for
termination of service have been
provided for thereunder. A decision
taken by the disciplinary authority
under the 1956 Act ordinarily could
have been a subject-matter of suit.
The civil court, however, exercises a
limited jurisdiction. If, however, the
employee concerned is a “workman”
within the meaning of the provisions of
the 1947 Act, his remedy apart from
the common law remedies may also lie
before an Industrial Court. When a
right accrues under two statutes vis-à-
 17

vis the common law right, the

employee concerned will have an
option to chose his forum. (Para 19)
28. Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) A distinction between occupation and
Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash profession we can see that
Srivastava an occupation is a principal activity
(job, work or calling) that earns money
(2007) 1 SCC 491 (regular wage or salary) for a person
and a profession is an occupation that
requires extensive training and the
study and mastery of specialised
knowledge and usually has a
professional association, ethical code
and process of certification or
licensing. Classically, there were only
three professions: ministry, medicine
and law. These three professions each
hold to a specific code of ethics and
members are almost universally
required to swear to some form of oath
to uphold those ethics, therefore
“professing” to a higher standard of
accountability. Each of these
professions also provides and requires
extensive training in the meaning,
value and importance of its particular
oath in the practise of that profession.
(Para 38)
29. Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi The University statute does not
Evam Prodyogiki provide for appointment on daily
Vishwavidyalaya v. United wages or on an ad hoc basis.
Respondent 2 in his written statement
Trades Congress
filed before the Industrial Court did
(2008) 2 SCC 552 not make any averment that he had
been appointed in terms of the
provisions of the statute or prior
thereto any advertisement therefor was
made. According to him, he being a
hard working, honest, efficient and
 18

eligible employee, was “entrusted” with

the work of a clerk from 1-11-1991. In
his written statement, it was averred:
“5. That though the worker was
working against a permanent vacant
post as a clerk in a permanent
manner, however, the employer is not
giving him the actual scale of pay and
other allowances and benefits as that
of a permanent clerk. However, he is
still considered as a daily wager in
spite of having worked since last 14
years continuously, which is illegal
and wrong.” (Para 11)
30. State of Uttarakhand v. The award passed by the Labour
Sureshwati Court, and find that a full opportunity
was given to the parties to lead
(2021) 3 SCC 108 evidence, both oral and documentary,
to substantiate their respective case.
The High Court has not even adverted
to the said evidence, and has disposed
of the writ petition on the sole ground
that the School had not conducted a
disciplinary enquiry before discharging
the respondent from service. The
School has led sufficient evidence
before the Labour Court to prove that
the respondent had abandoned her
service from 1-7-1997 when she got
married, and moved to another
district, which was not denied by her
in her evidence. The record of the
School reveals that she was not in
employment of the School since July
1997. (Para 22)
 19

31. Syndicate Bank v. General (1) Principles of natural justice and

Secy. Syndicate Bank Staff duty to act in a just, fair and
Assn. reasonable manner have to be read in
the Certified Standing Orders which
(2000) 5 SCC 65 have statutory force. These can be
applied by the Labour Court and the
Industrial Tribunal even to relations
between the management and
workman though based on contractual
obligations; and
(2) where domestic inquiry was not
held or it was vitiated for some reason
the Tribunal or Court adjudicating an
industrial dispute can itself go into the
question raised before it on the basis
of the evidence and other material on
record.(Para 14)

The requirements of principles of

natural justice, which are required to
be observed? These are : (1) a
workman should know the nature of
the complaint or accusation; (2) an
opportunity to state his case; and (3)
the management should act in good
faith which means that the action of
the management should be fair,
reasonable and just. (Para 16)
32. U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. Different considerations would no
v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. doubt prevail where the strike is legal.
Karamchari Sangh Workers on strike continue to be in
service although they may have ceased
(2004) 4 SCC 268 work. If the strike is a legal one such
cessation of work or refusal to
continue would be absence authorised
by law. Under CSO L-2.12 a
presumption is to be drawn against an
employee if such employee is
unauthorisedly absent. Clearly, a
 20

person on illegal strike and a person

on legal strike are both “absent”, but
the absence of the first is
unauthorised and the second is not.
CSO L-2.12 raises a presumption
against the employee and it is for the
employee to rebut that presumption by
adducing the evidence. It is, therefore,
imperative that the factual basis is
determined by the appropriate
forum. (Para 21)
33. Uttaranchal Forest The question, however, would be as to
Development Corpn. v. M.C. whether in a situation of this nature,
Joshi relief of reinstatement in services
should have been granted. It is now
(2007) 9 SCC 353 well settled by reason of a catena of
decisions of this Court that the relief of
reinstatement with full back wages
would not be granted automatically
only because it would be lawful to do
so. For the said purpose, several
factors are required to be taken into
consideration, one of them being as to
whether such an appointment had
been made in terms of the statutory
rules. Delay in raising an industrial
dispute is also a relevant fact. (Para 9)
34. GM, Haryana Roadways v. It is settled law that the mere factum
Pawan Kumar of delay in raising a dispute by itself
does not bring the dispute to an end.
(2005) 12 SCC 459 The delay in raising the dispute,
however, may be taken into account in
the matter of grant of relief. (Para 6)
35. Prabhakar v. Sericulture The power of “appropriate
Dept. Government” under Section 10 of the
Act in referring or refusing to refer the
(2015) 15 SCC 1 dispute for adjudication. It is a
peculiar position provided under the
Act that an aggrieved workman cannot
21

approach the Labour Court or

Industrial Tribunal directly for
adjudication of “industrial dispute”.
Except those cases falling under
Section 2-A of the Act, he has to seek
reference of dispute to the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal under
Section 10 of the Act. “Appropriate
Government”, as defined under
Section 2(a) of the Act, is empowered
to refer the dispute. Section 10(1)
stipulates that “appropriate
Government” may, at any time, by
order in writing, refer the dispute to a
Board, Labour Court or Industrial
Tribunal where “it is of the opinion that
any industrial dispute exists or is
apprehended”. Interpreting this
Section, way back in the year 1953,
this Court in State of Madras v. C.P.
Sarathy [State of Madras v. C.P.
Sarathy, (1952) 2 SCC 606 : AIR 1953
SC 53 : (1953) 4 SCR 334] stated the
following propositions: (AIR p. 57, para
14)
(i) The Government should satisfy
itself, on the facts and circumstances
brought to its notice, in its subjective
opinion that an “industrial dispute”
exists or is “apprehended”;
(ii) the factual existence of a dispute or
its apprehension and the expediency of
making reference are matters entirely
for the Government to decide;
(iii) the order making a reference is an
administrative act and it is not a
judicial or a quasi-judicial act; and
(iv) the order of reference passed by
the Government cannot be examined
 22

by the High Court in its jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution
to see if the Government had material
before it to support the conclusion
that the dispute existed or was
apprehended. (Para 10)
36. Rajasthan State Agriculture Though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not
Mktg. Board v. Mohan Lal applicable to the reference made under
the ID Act but delay in raising
(2013) 14 SCC 543 industrial dispute is definitely an
important circumstance which the
Labour Court must keep in view at the
time of exercise of discretion
irrespective of whether or not such
objection has been raised by the other
side. The legal position laid down by
this Court in Gitam Singh [Rajasthan
Development Corpn. v. Gitam Singh,
(2013) 5 SCC 136 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S)
369] that before exercising its judicial
discretion, the Labour Court has to
keep in view all relevant factors
including the mode and manner of
appointment, nature of employment,
length of service, the ground on which
termination has been set aside and the
delay in raising industrial dispute
before grant of relief in an industrial
dispute, must be invariably followed.
(Para 19)
37. Raghubir Singh v. Haryana In our view of the facts and
Roadways circumstances of the case on hand,
the reference was made by the State
(2014) 10 SCC 301 Government to the Labour Court for
adjudication of the existing industrial
dispute; it has erroneously held it to
be barred by limitation. This award
was further erroneously affirmed by
the High Court, which is bad in law
23

and therefore the same is liable to be

set aside. According to Section 10(1) of
the Act, the appropriate Government
“at any time” may refer an industrial
dispute for adjudication, if it is of the
opinion that such an industrial
dispute between the workman and the
employer exists or is apprehended.
Section 10(1) reads as follows:
“10.Reference of disputes to Boards,
Courts or Tribunals.—(1) Where the
appropriate Government is of opinion
that any industrial dispute exists or is
apprehended, it may at any time, by
order in writing—
(a) refer the dispute to a Board for
promoting a settlement thereof; or
(b) refer any matter appearing to be
connected with or relevant to the
dispute to a Court for inquiry; or
(c) refer the dispute or any matter
appearing to be connected with, or
relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to
any matter specified in the Second
Schedule, to a Labour Court for
adjudication; or
(d) refer the dispute or any matter
appearing to be connected with, or
relevant to the dispute, whether it
relates to any matter specified in the
Second Schedule or the Third
Schedule, to a Tribunal for
adjudication:”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, it is necessary for us to carefully
observe the phrase “at any time” used
in this section. Therefore, there arises
an issue whether the question of
limitation is applicable to the reference
 24

of the existing industrial dispute that

would be made by the State
Government either to the Labour
Court or Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication at the instance of the
appellant. (Para 11)
38. Talwara Coop. Credit and When the question arises as to how
Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil and in what manner balance should
Kumar be struck, it is necessary for the
Industrial Courts also to consider as to
(2008) 9 SCC 486 whether the industry has been sick or
not. If it is found that the industry is
not in a position to bear the financial
burden, an appropriate award, as a
result whereof the equities between
the parties can be adjusted, should be
passed. (Para 14)
39. Rajasthan SRTC v. It is not a case where the misconduct
Kamruddin against the respondent had not been
proved. It is also not a case where the
(2009) 7 SCC 552 domestic enquiry was found to have
been conducted in an unfair manner
or contrary to the principles of natural
justice. The services of the respondent
had been terminated while the period
of probation was not over. As a
conductor, his performance during the
period of probation was found to be
unsatisfactory. It is not in dispute that
a disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against him while he was found to
have committed similar misconduct for
the fifth time. It is also beyond any
doubt or dispute that he had also been
served with a letter of warning.
(Para 15)
 25

The power of Labour Court and/or

Industrial Tribunal in terms of Section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 to interfere with the quantum of
punishment although cannot be
denied, but it is also a well-settled
principle of law that the said power
should be exercised judiciously. (Para
16)
40. U.P. SRTC v. Man Singh The respondent admittedly raised a
dispute in 1986 i.e. after a period of
(2006) 7 SCC 752 about 12 years. It may be true that in
an appropriate case, as has been done
by the Labour Court, delay in raising
the dispute would have resulted in
rejection of his claim for back wages
for the period during which the
workman remains absent as has been
held by this Court in Gurmail
Singh v. Principal, Govt. College of
Education [(2000) 9 SCC 496 : 2001
SCC (L&S) 105] . But the discretionary
relief, in our opinion, must be granted
upon taking into consideration all
attending circumstances. The
appellant is a statutory corporation.
Keeping in view the fact that the
respondent was appointed on a
temporary basis, it was unlikely that
he remained unemployed for such a
long time. In any event, it would be
wholly unjust at this distance of time
i.e. after a period of more than 30
years, to direct reinstatement of the
respondent in service. Unfortunately,
the Labour Court or the High Court
did not consider these aspects of the
matter. (Para 7)
 26

41. U.P. SEB v. Laxmi Kant A person is not entitled to get

Gupta something only because it would be
lawful to do so. The changes brought
(2009) 16 SCC 562 out by the subsequent decisions of
this Court, probably having regard to
the changes in the policy decisions of
the Government in the wake of
prevailing market economy,
globalisation, privatisation and
outsourcing was evident. Hence, now
there is no such principle that for an
illegal termination of service the
normal rule is reinstatement with back
wages, and instead the Labour Court
can award compensation. The same
view was followed by this Court
in Haryana State Electronics
Development Corpn.
Ltd. v. Mamni [(2006) 9 SCC 434 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1830 : AIR 2006 SC
2427] (AIR vide paras 15 to 17).
(Para 9)
42. Haryana State Coop. Land It is trite that the courts and tribunals
Development Bank v. Neelam having plenary jurisdiction have
discretionary power to grant an
(2005) 5 SCC 91 appropriate relief to the parties. The
aim and object of the Industrial
Disputes Act may be to impart social
justice to the workman but the same
by itself would not mean that
irrespective of his conduct a workman
would automatically be entitled to
relief. The procedural laws like
estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are
equally applicable to the industrial
proceedings. A person in certain
situation may even be held to be
bound by the doctrine of acceptance
sub silentio. (Para 91)
 27

43. State of Punjab v. Anil Kumar While upholding the direction for
reinstatement, we direct that the
(2007) 9 SCC 663 directions given by the Labour Court
as affirmed by the High Court
regarding payment of back wages need
to be modified. the direction for
payment of back wages stands set
aside while the direction for
reinstatement is maintained.
(Para 13 & 14)
44. State of Punjab v. Des It is to be noted that at the time of
Bandhu issuance of notice on 8-7-2003 interim
stay was granted. The interim order of
(2007) 9 SCC 39 stay was made absolute subsequently.
It has been specifically pleaded that
purported industrial dispute was
raised after 9 years of alleged
termination and a demand notice was
issued in December 1997. The alleged
order of termination was passed in
February 1989. The delay was
occasioned to a considerable extent
due to pendency of civil suit and the
appeal. In view of these peculiar facts,
it would be appropriate to modify the
order passed by the Labour Court as
affirmed by the High Court to the
following effect:
1. Instead of reinstatement and/or
payment of back wages for a certain
period let the appellants pay a sum of
Rs 60,000 to the respondent. This
shall be in full and final settlement of
the claims of the respondent.
2. Direction for reinstatement stands
vacated. The payment shall be made
within a period of eight weeks from
today by a demand draft drawn in the
name of the respondent of any
 28

nationalised bank.
3. If the amount is not paid within the
stipulated time the order of the Labour
Court as affirmed by the High Court
shall stand revived. (Para 7)
45. Rajasthan Development In our view, Harjinder
Corpn. v. Gitam Singh Singh [Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State
Warehousing Corpn., (2010) 3 SCC 192
(2013) 5 SCC 136 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1146]
and Devinder Singh [Devinder
Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur,
(2011) 6 SCC 584 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S)
153] do not lay down the proposition
that in all cases of wrongful
termination, reinstatement must
follow. This Court found in those cases
that judicial discretion exercised by
the Labour Court was disturbed by the
High Court on wrong assumption that
the initial employment of the employee
was illegal. As noted above, with
regard to the wrongful termination of a
daily wager, who had worked for a
short period, this Court in long line of
cases has held that the award of
reinstatement cannot be said to be
proper relief and rather award of
compensation in such cases would be
in consonance with the demand of
justice. Before exercising its judicial
discretion, the Labour Court has to
keep in view all relevant factors,
including the mode and manner of
appointment, nature of employment,
length of service, the ground on which
the termination has been set aside and
the delay in raising the industrial
dispute before grant of relief in an
industrial dispute. (Para 27)
 29

46. Mahila Samkhya v. Abdul A finding has been arrived at by the

Kareem Labour Court that the termination of
the services of the first respondent,
(2008) 17 SCC 61 relying on or on the basis of Para XIV
of the offer of appointment, is a
camouflage and the said finding has
been affirmed by the High Court. We
are not inclined to interfere therewith,
being a finding of fact. It is, however,
not a case where an award of
reinstatement could be made. The
Society runs the project. The project
came to an end in 1999. The plea that
the tenure of the project was extended
by the Government of India was not
put to the Management. Such a plea
cannot be raised for the first time
before us. (Para 11)
47. State of Uttarakhand v. Raj Thus when he cannot claim
Kumar regularisation and he has no right to
continue even as a daily-wage worker,
(2019) 14 SCC 353 no useful purpose is going to be served
in reinstating such a workman and he
can be given monetary compensation
by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is
terminated again after reinstatement,
he would receive monetary
compensation only in the form of
retrenchment compensation and
notice pay. In such a situation, giving
the relief of reinstatement, that too
after a long gap, would not serve any
purpose.
35. We would, however, like to add a
caveat here. There may be cases where
termination of a daily-wage worker is
found to be illegal on the ground that
it was resorted to as unfair labour
practice or in violation of the principle
 30

of last come first go viz. while

retrenching such a worker daily wage
juniors to him were retained. There
may also be a situation that persons
junior to him were regularised under
some policy but the workman
concerned terminated. In such
circumstances, the terminated worker
should not be denied reinstatement
unless there are some other weighty
reasons for adopting the course of
grant of compensation instead of
reinstatement. In such cases,
reinstatement should be the rule and
only in exceptional cases for the
reasons stated to be in writing, such a
relief can be denied.” (Para10)
48. National Gandhi Museum v. In Talwara Coop. Credit & Service
Sudhir Sharma Society Ltd. [Talwara Coop. Credit &
Service Society Ltd. v. Sushil Kumar,
(2021) 12 SCC 439 (2008) 9 SCC 486 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S)
931] , this Court has held that the fact
whether an employee after dismissal
was gainfully employed is within his
special knowledge and therefore,
considering the principles laid down in
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872,
the burden is on the employee to come
out with a case that he was not
gainfully employed during the relevant
period. We must note that whether
such burden is discharged or not is an
issue to be decided in the facts of each
case. The issue has to be decided by
taking into consideration the entire
material on record. (Para 8)
49. Workmen of Assam Match if an employer is shown to have
Co. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, dismissed his employee without
justification, and the decision of the
 31

Labour Court dispute resulting from such illegal

dismissal takes time, it cannot be
1964 SCC OnLine SC 358 urged by the employer that by reason
of passage of time, reinstatement
should not be ordered. One of the
objects which industrial adjudication
has to keep in mind is to assure
industrial employees security of
tenure. There is no doubt that security
of tenure for industrial employment
tends to create harmonious relations
between the employer and the
employee, and so, this Court has
consistently held that in cases of
wrongful or illegal dismissal, the
normal rule is that the employee who
has been illegally or wrongfully
dismissed should be reinstated. We
are, therefore, satisfied that the
contention raised by the Solicitor-
General against reinstatement on the
ground of passage of time cannot be
accepted. (Para 6)
50. Mavji C. Lakum v. Central In the present matter apart from the
Bank of India fact that the petition is labelled under
Article 226 of the Constitution of
(2008) 12 SCC 726 India, it is clear that the grounds
raised in the petition suggest that the
petition is not only under Article 227
but also under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is to be seen that in
the grounds raised against the order of
the Tribunal, it is specifically
suggested that the order passed by the
Tribunal was arbitrary, unreasonable,
unjust and perverse. The further
complaint made against the Tribunal's
order pertains to failure on the part of
the Tribunal to appreciate certain facts
 32

and eventualities thereby complaining

non-application of mind on the part of
the Tribunal. Complaint has also been
made against the approach of the
Tribunal and it is suggested that the
said approach was perverse. After
reading the writ petition we are
convinced that the contentions raised
and the facts stated in the petition
justify the respondent herein to file an
application both under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Para 13)
51. Haryana State Electronics However, indisputably, the respondent
Development Corpn. Ltd. v. was appointed on an ad hoc basis.
Mamni She, although qualified to hold the
post of Junior Technician, when the
(2006) 9 SCC 434 advertisement had been issued for
filling up the said post, did not apply
therefor. The services of the
respondent were terminated as far
back as in the year 1992. Even if she
is reinstated in her service on an ad
hoc basis, her services cannot be
regularised in view of a recent
Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in Secy., State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4
SCC 1 : (2006) 4 Scale 197] .
Furthermore, she had absented herself
for a period of 19 days from 20-1-1992
to 7-2-1992 and for a period of 11
days from 17-2-1992 to 27-2-1992.
(Para 12)

*****