[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Tokram Rajwade Died Through Legal Heirs vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 29 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 355 of 2014
Surit Ram S/o Fagulal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Hatod, PS And
Tehsil Kasdol, Distt Baloda Bazar ( Old District Raipur), CG.
--- Appellant(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh,
Department Of Water Resource, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Now
Present Address Mahanadi Bhawan, PS Rakhi, New Raipur, Dist
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. State Industrial Court, Through Its Registrar, Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
WA No. 317 of 2014
Ramkhilawan Sahu S/o Ganga Prasad Sahu Aged About 50 Years old
R/o Village Kharche, PO Kasdol, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Executive Engineer Construction Division Water Resources Deptt.
Kasdol, Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Ballar Canal Sub Division Kasdol, Tah Kasdol,
Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WA No. 378 of 2014
Janak Ram S/o Tir Singh Patel (wrongly mentioned as Vir Singh Patel in
Writ Petition) Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Hatod, PS And PO
Kasdol, Distt Raipur, Now Distt Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh
—Appellant(s)
Versus
2
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Deptt.,
Mahanadi Bhawan, PS Rakhi, New Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Superintendent Engineer Water Resources Deptt. Raipur, Dist Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Baloda Bazar, Distt
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub Division, Kasdol, Tehsil
Kasdol, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Presiding Officer, Industrial Court, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WA No. 390 of 2014
Surendra Kumar Sahu S/o Salikram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Vill.
And Post Kankera Tah. And Dist. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
—Appellant(s)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Senior Agriculture Development Officer,
Block Mahasamund Tah. And Dist. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
2. Deputy Director Agriculture (Agriculture Department) Mahasamund,
District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3. Presiding Officer Labour Court Raipur ,District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WA No. 392 of 2014
Tokram Rajwade (Died) Through Legal Heirs
Smt. Geeta Bai Rajwade W/o Late Shri Tokram Rajwade Aged About 39
Years R/o Village Kanki Block Kartala, Police Station Kartala, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh.
—Appellant(s)
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Executive Engineer Hasdeo Barrage
Water Resource Rampur, Chhattisgarh
2. Sub Divisional Officer Hasdeo R.B.C. Water Resource Sub Division No.
1, Pantora Dist. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
3
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Law And
Legislature Mahandi Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Secretary Department Of General Administration Mantralaya Mahandi
Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Mr. Ritesh Giri, Mr. Harshal
Chouhan, Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocates.
For Respondent(s) / : Mr. Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General
State
Date of Hearing : 01/08/2025
Date of Order : 29/08/2025
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
C.A.V. Order
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Mr. Ritesh Giri, Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Mr.
Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the respective appellants as well
as Mr. Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the State/
respondents.
2. Since the facts in all these cases are almost identical, they are being
considered together.
3. WA No. 355 of 2014 is taken as the lead case.
4. The facts, in brief, as projected in this appeal is that the appellant was
initially appointed as a Labour on 01.03.1985 and continuously worked
till 01.08.1994 without any break of service. All of sudden on 01.08.1994
the services of the appellant was discontinued and terminated by the
Sub Divisional Officer, Balar Canal, Sub Division, Kasadol by oral order
4
without assigning any reason. The services the other similarly situated
employees namely Tularam, Badku, Dhaniram,, Khelaf, Bharat,
Ramnarayan, Harishankar, Dukalu, Dhaniram, Shyamu, Kushu Ram,
Ramnarayan, Harishanker were terminated by the oral order in the year
1994 on the basis of a Circular issued by the erstwhile Government of
Madhya Pradesh in year 1994. Against the termination/discontinuation
of service of the by oral order dated 01.08.1994, the appellant
approached before the Labour Court, Raipur by moving an application
under section 31(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act,
1960 (for short, the MPIR Act) in the year 1995 and on receiving the said
application of the appellant, the learned Labour Court registered the
case being No. 197/MPIR Act/1995. Notice was issued to the concerned
Department upon which the Department filed its return. The learned
Labour Court, Raipur without appreciation of evidence and materials,
rejected the said application of the appellant vide order dated
26.06.2003.
5. The said order dated 26.06.2003 was challenged by the appellant in
Case No. 173/CGIR Act/1995 before the learned Industrial Court and
the Industrial Court also after going through the records and evidence of
the Court below and held that the learned Labour Court did not properly
appreciate the evidence and documents at the time of considering the
case of appellant and also held that the appellant has completed more
than 240 days in preceding 12 months and the Department did not
complied with the provisions Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Dispute Act
prior to retrenchment of the answering respondent. In pursuance of the
award passed by the Industrial Court, the appellant was reinstated in the
service w.e.f. 10.07.2007 and also prepared the service book of the
appellant since then he is continuously working. The employees/daily
5
wagers who were terminated along with the appellant by oral order
dated 01.08.1994 namely Tularam, Badku, Dhaniram,, Khelaf, Bharat,
Ramnarayan, Harishankar, Dukalu, Dhaniram, Shyamu Kushu Ram,
Ramnarayan, Harishanker and other employee, had also approached
before the Labour Court Raipur under the C.G./M.P.I.R. Act and Labour
Court held that order of retrenchment /termination was illegal and they
were reinstated in the service in pursuance of the order passed by the
Labour Court. In between, the State Government issued a
Notification/Circular dated 05.03.2008 whereby it is decided that the
daily wages employee who were working prior to 31 st December 1988
and 1997, would be entitled for regularization on their respective posts.
6. Only due to pendency of the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner /
Department, the State Government has not considered the case of the
appellant as per Circular dated 05.03.2008 for his regularization. The
State Government had also challenged the orders passed by the Labour
Court in favors of the others similarly employees who’s were terminated
alongwith the respondent No.1/employee. Finally, the writ petition of the
State Government came up for hearing and vide order dated 12.08.2014
the learned Single Judge without proper consideration of the findings
recorded by the learned Industrial Court on the basis of materials
available, has interfered with the findings recorded by the Industrial
Court and modified order of reinstatement of appellant and allowed the
writ petition filed by the State and held that the appellant/employee was
entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, which is under
challenge in this appeal alongwith the batch of writ appeals.
7. This batch of writ appeals was being heard by a learned Division Bench
of this Court, however, these appeals have come up before this Full
6
Bench in view of the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the learned
Division Bench which has referred the following questions for
consideration:
“(i) What is the extent of the power of judicial review
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and
whether the writ court can interfere in the relief granted by
the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and if so under what
circumstances?
(ii) Whether in a case where retrenchment of the
workmen is held to be violative of provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, the workmen is automatically
entitled to be reinstated or can compensation be granted
in place of reinstatement?
(iii) What are the parameters for deciding in which cases
reinstatement should be granted and in which cases the
relief of compensation should be granted?
(iv) What are the parameters to decide in which cases
the workmen be granted full back-wages or partial back-
wages and in which cases the workmen should be
denied benefit of back-wages?
(v) What is the effect of delay on the part of the workman
in approaching the appropriate authority for challenging
his order of termination?”
8. It would be beneficial to briefly take note of the facts and circumstances
which led to referring the above questions before this Bench.
9. In this batch of writ appeals, the main question which arose for
consideration was as to what relief the workmen are entitled to when
their termination from services is held to be bad. Should this result in
automatically reinstatement of the workmen with full back-wages or
partial back- wages or with no back-wages or should the workmen be
7
compensated by payment of monetary compensation and denied the
relief of reinstatement and back-wages.
10. Another question that arises is what is the power of judicial review vis-a-
is the relief granted by the Labour Court. This question arises in a large
number of cases. There are various judgments of the Apex Court on this
aspect of the matter. The Apex Court has laid down various principles as
to in which cases reinstatement should be given, in which cases back-
ages should be granted and in which cases the order of reinstatement
and payment of back-wages is not justified and compensation is the
adequate relief available to the workmen.
11. It was observed by the learned Division Bench that there could be no
hard and fast formula which can be laid down and each case has to be
decided on its own merits. However, as the then Chief Justice had
observed that there were absolutely conflicting judgments being
delivered by the different Single Benches of this Court, the matter was
taken up in the Division Bench.
12. Before the learned Division Bench, two judgments were cited, one on
behalf of the claimants being Writ Appeal No. 568 of 2015 in which the
benefit of reinstatement and order of reinstatement passed by the
Labour Court was confirmed. There is no detailed discussion with regard
to various judgments of the Apex Court. The other case cited was Writ
Appeal No. 50 of 2011. Though in this case, there was some discussion
with regard to the judgments of the Apex Court, the learned Division
Bench was of the view that even in this case, the matter has not been
discussed threadbare and various judgments of the Apex Court were not
considered. The matter did not end there. Even after the aforesaid
judgments delivered, there were now fresh judgments of the Apex Court
8
in this regard. Therefore, it was felt that these issues which arise day in
and day out before this Court require to be considered by a Full Bench
and as such, the questions as above, were referred to this Bench.
13. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants /
employees submit that the appellants are entitled to be reinstated in
service as they have served the respondent/Department for a
considerable long time and there are catena of decisions which supports
the contentions of the appellants.
14. With respect to the first question (i), Mr. Deshmukh places reliance on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v.
Hindalco Industries Ltd. {(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 437},Devinder Singh
v. Municipal Council, Sanaur {(2011) 6 SCC 584}, Harjinder Singh
v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation {(2010) 3 SCC 192},
Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.
1 Panipat, (Haryana) {(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 63}, Krishna Singh v.
Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board,
Rohtak (Haryana) {(2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 890}, Jasmer Singh v. State
of Haryana & Another {(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 46}.
15. With respect to the issue as to whether the relief of reinstatement in
service can be granted in every case where the Labour Court or the
Industrial Court has held that the termination of the employee is illegal,
and further when non-compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947
entails reinstatement in service, Mr. Deshmukh places reliance on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Haryana {(2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 420}, Sudarshan Rajpoot v. Uttar
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation {(2015) 1 SCC (L&S)
451}, Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Mackinnon Employees
9
Union {(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 66}, Raj Kumar Dixit v. Vijay Kumar
Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar {(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 776}, Ajaypal
Singh v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation {(2015) 2 SCC (L&S)
279}, Gauri Shanker v. State of Rajasthan {2015 (145) FLR 671},
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Man Singh {(2012) 1 SCC 558},
Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board &
Another {(2009) 15 SCC 327}. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan
Development Corporation & Another v. Gitam Singh {(2013) 5 SCC
136}, Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board v. Mohan Lal {(2013) 14 SCC 543}, Maharashtra State Co-
operative Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Suresh {(2015) 4 SCC 542},
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation & Others v. Jadeja Govubha
Chhanubha & Another {(2014) 16 SCC 130}, Vice Chancellor,
Lucknow University, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar
Khare & Another {(2016) 1 SCC 521}, Haryana Urban Development
Authority v. Om Pal {(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 255}, Deputy Executive
Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai {(2019) 4 SCC 307}, Jayantibhai
Raojibhai Patel v. Municipal Council , Narkhed & Others {(2019)
17 SCC 184}, K.V.Anil Mithra & Another v. Sree Sankaracharya
University of Sanskrit and Another {Civil Appeal No. 9067/2014,
decided on 27.10.2021}, Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer, PWD
{Civil Appeal No. 4483/2010, decided on 02.09.2021}, Divisional
Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.
Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele {Civil Appeal No. 463/2022, decided on
31.01.2022}, Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank v. Panchamlal Yadav
{Civil Appeal No. 9792/2010},
16. With respect to stale claims/limitation/delay and laches, Mr. Deshmukh
places reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prabhakar v.
10
Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Another {(2015) 15 SCC
1}, Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Corporation Marketing cum Processing
Service Society Ltd. {(1999) 6 SCC 82}, Balbir Singh v. Punjab
Roadways {(2001) 1 SCC 133}, Management of Sudamdih Colliery
of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Workmen, Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh {(2006) 2 SCC 329}, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation v. Mansingh {(2006) 7 SCC 752}, Director, Food &
Supply Punjab v. Gurmit Singh {(2007) 5 SCC 727}, Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti v. Pahal Singh {(2007) 12 SCC 193}, Haryana Land
Reclamation Development Corporation Ltd. v. Nirmal Kumar
{(2008) 2 SCC 366}, Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam v. Sham Lal
{(2006) SCC (L&S) 1617 }, Raghubir Singh v. Haryana Roadways
{(2015) 1 SCC L&S 23}, Assistant Engineer, CAD, Kota v. Dhan
Kunwar {(2006) 13 SCC 299}.
17. With respect to the parameters to decide as to in which case a workman
be granted full / partial backwages and in which case he should be
denied the benefit of back-wages, Mr. Deshmukh places reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) & Others, {(2013) 10 SCC
324} and Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel {supra},
18. On the other hand, Mr. Y.S.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the writ petitioner/State submits that the reference made
by the learned Division Bench stands answered by various judgments of
the Hon’ble Apex, however, he fairly admits that there are judgments,
both in favour and against the writ petitioner/State. He places reliance on
the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank v.
Panchamlal Yadav {(2021) 20 SCC 633}, Hari Nandan Prasad &
11
Another v. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of
India & Another {(2014) 7 SCC 190}, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v.
Bhurumal {(2014) 7 SCC 177}, Gitam Singh (supra), Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) Incharge Officer & Another v. Shankar
Shetty {(2010) 9 SCC 126}, Senior Superintendent Telegraph
(Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & Others {(2010) 6 SCC
773} and Jagbir Singh (supra).
19. With respect to the first question referred by the learned Division Bench,
the extent of judicial review under Articles 226 of the Constitution of
India, a writ Court has a very wide power. It can issue writs for
enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for any other purpose i.e.,
legal rights. The jurisdiction is discretionary, equitable and extraordinary.
However, it is not an appellate jurisdiction. The High Court does not re-
appreciate evidence as if sitting in appeal. So far as Article 227 of the
Constitution is concerned, it is the power of superintendence. The High
Court has power of superintendence over all learned trial Courts /
Tribunals. This includes keeping Tribunals within the bounds of their
authority, ensuring they do not act perversely or illegally. It is not meant
to correct every error of fact or law, but only such errors that go to
jurisdiction, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. The Labour Courts and
Industrial Tribunals are specialized fact-finding and adjudicatory bodies
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ID Act). Their
awards are generally final on facts. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction,
can interfere only in limited circumstances i.e. jurisdictional errors, error
apparent of the face of record, perversity or case of no evidence,
violation of natural justice, arbitrariness.
12
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan
{AIR 1964 SC 477}, Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai {(2003) 6
SCC 675}, and Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation {(2010) 3 SCC 192} has consistently held that while the
High Court has wide powers under Article 226 and supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227, but such powers are to be exercised with
great circumspection and only to ensure that the Labour Courts /
Tribunals act within the bounds of their authority.
21. With respect to second question referred to by the learned Division
Bench, the relief which the Courts used to grant traditionally was
reinstatement with back-wages. Earlier, the settled principle was that
once retrenchment/termination was held to be illegal or violative of
Section 25F of the ID Act, the normal rule was reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages. This was based on the idea that
retrenchment without compliance of statutory safeguards is void ab
initio. However, with passage of time, there has been a shift in judicial
approach. Over time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has nuanced the rule,
recognising that automatic reinstatement is not always proper, especially
when: (i) the workman was a casual/temporary employee, (ii) the
industry/employer has reorganised or downsized (iii) long delay has
occurred in raising the dispute or (iv) industrial peace or practical
feasibility is at stake. In Hindustan Tin Works v. Employees {(1979) 2
SCC 80}, back-wages was considered a normal rule, but subject to
equities. In Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal {(1980) 4 SCC 443} it was observed that if retrenchment is in
violation of Section 25F of the ID Act, reinstatement normally follows. In
Haryana State Electronics Dev. Corpn. Ltd. v. Mamni {(2006) 9
13
SCC 434} it has been held that reinstatement is not automatic; and
compensation can be awarded depending on facts.
22. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board {(2009)
15 SCC 327}, the Supreme Court held that relief of reinstatement with
full back wages is not automatic. Instead, compensation may be
adequate relief, particularly where the workman was employed for a
short term or on daily wages. In Bhurumal (supra), compensation
instead of reinstatement was awarded; and automatic reinstatement was
held to be no longer the rule. The current legal position is that no
automatic reinstatement can be awarded even if retrenchment is held to
be illegal. The relief depends on factors such as (i) nature of employment
(permanent / daily wager) (ii) length of service (iii) delay in raising
dispute, (iv) whether reinstatement is practicable or equitable.
23. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is increasingly granted, especially
where reinstatement is impractical. A permanent / regular employee
with long service is likely to get reinstatement, of course, subject to
equities and on the contrary, a daily wager/ short term workers or where
claims are raised belatedly, are likely to get monetary compensation
instead of reinstatement. As such, it can be concluded that when
retrenchment is held violative of the ID Act, reinstatement in service is
not automatic. The Court/Tribunal has discretion, based on facts and
equities, to award compensation instead of reinstatement, and this has
become the prevailing trend of the Hon’ble Apex Court in recent years.
24. So far as the third question is concerned, the nature of employment is
one of the main factor in deciding whether to grant reinstatement or
compensation. In case the nature of employment is permanent / regular,
reinstatement is the normal rule whereas, in case of daily wager /
14
casual / temporary / contractual worker, compensation is usually
granted instead of reinstatement {See: Jagbir Singh (supra)}. Another
factor that has to be borne in mind is the length of service. In case of
long, continuous service (e.g., 10-15 years), reinstatement with
continuity may be justified, whereas in case of short service or brief
engagement, compensation should be awarded, as reinstatement may
be inequitable. Delay in raising the dispute is also an important factor to
be considered. In case of prompt challenge, reinstatement is more likely
to be granted and on the contrary but if there is long unexplained delay,
reinstatement may be denied and compensation may be granted.
25. The conduct of the workman is also equally important. If the conduct of
the workman is blameless, reinstatement may be favoured and in case
of misconduct or indiscipline proven, but there are technical defects in
termination, compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement.
Feasibility of reinstatement is also required to be considered. If the
industry/establishment has closed down, reorganized, or the post has
ceased, reinstatement may not be feasible and award of compensation
would be justified. Employer’s size and position also matters. Large
Establishments where reinstatement would not cause any disturbance in
efficiency, reinstatement may be ordered. Small Industry/Employer,
where reinstatement would cause disproportionate hardships,
compensation is preferable. The Court has also to maintain equities and
justice. Courts weigh economic hardship, passage of time, industrial
peace, and dignity of the workman. Relief can be moulded accordingly
{See: Bhurumal (supra)}. The earlier judicial trend was automatic
reinstatement with back wages {See: Surendra Kumar Verma (supra)}
whereas the present trend is that reinstatement is not automatic.
Compensation is granted in many cases depending on facts of the
15
particular case. Earlier, reinstatement with full back wages was the
natural consequence of illegal retrenchment. But the Supreme Court, in
Jagbir Singh (supra) observed that this principle has undergone a
paradigm shift. In Jagbir Singh (supra), the workman had worked as a
daily wager for short period (about 2 years). He raised the dispute after
several years. The Supreme Court awarded lump-sum compensation of
Rs. 50,000 in place of reinstatement.
26. The factors/circumstances can be summarized as under:
Factor Reinstatement Compensation
Nature of Daily wager/ casual/
Permanent/regular
employment temporary
Length of service Long, continuous Short or sporadic
Delay Prompt challenge Long, unexplained delay
Employer functional, Establishment closed / post
Feasibility
post available abolished
Conduct Blameless Misconduct / indiscipline
No hardship to Reinstatement impractical /
Equity
employer inequitable
27. As such, it can be concluded that reinstatement is not automatic. Courts/
Tribunals consider nature of employment, length of service, delay,
conduct of workman, feasibility, and balance of equities. Where
reinstatement is impracticable or inequitable, compensation is granted
instead.
28. With regard to question No. (iv), as discussed above, earlier, once
termination / retrenchment is found illegal and reinstatement ordered, the
normal rule was full back wages. This was on the reasoning that the
workman, being illegally deprived of work, is entitled to full wages for the
period. However, there has been a shift in the aforesaid approach and
now it is not being considered to be automatic. In recent years, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that grant of full back wages is not
16
automatic and depends of facts, equities and conduct and the relief must
balance the interests of both employer and employee. Full back-wages
may be granted when it is a case of Illegal / unjustified termination of a
permanent or long-serving workman, the workman was not gainfully
employed during the period of termination, the challenge made to the
illegal termination was prompt and without delay, and further no
misconduct is attributable to the workman {See: Deepali Gundu
Surwase (supra)}. Partial back-wages can be awarded when there is
some delay in raising the dispute, the tenure of service of the workman
was short, existence of any intervening circumstances such as closure
of Unit, financial hardship of employer and the possibility of gainful
employment, even if not conclusively proved.
29. Back-wages may be denied in case where there is a long unexplained
delay in raising the dispute where doctrine of laches would come into
play, workman was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period
(burden on employer to prove, but once prima facie shown, burden shifts
to workman), the termination of the workman was not mala fide but due
to bona fide reorganization/retrenchment, though legally defective and in
case there is misconduct on the part of the workman, even if the
termination order is technically invalid. {See: U.P. State Brassware
Corpn. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479}. The aforesaid
discussion may be summarised as under:
Relief Parameters
Illegal termination + permanent/long service
Full Back Wages + no misconduct + prompt challenge + no
gainful employment
Delay in dispute + short tenure + possible
Partial Back Wages gainful employment + financial hardship of
employer
No Back Wages Long unexplained delay + gainful
17
Relief Parameters
employment elsewhere + misconduct by
workman + bona fide but technically
defective termination
30. So far as the last question referred is concerned, firstly, it has to be
understood as to what would be the effect of delay in challenging
termination by workman. Admittedly, there is no statutory limitation
under the ID Act, 1947. The said Act does not prescribe any limitation
period for raising an industrial dispute or seeking a reference by the
Government under Section 10. Hence, technically, a dispute can be
raised even after a long delay. However, the principles of delay and
laches could be applied. Even in absence of statutory limitation, courts
apply the equitable doctrine of delay and laches. Long unexplained delay
may weigh against the workman, especially if it causes prejudice to the
employer (e.g., records lost, establishment closed, replacement of
worker). In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty {(2000) 2
SCC 455}, the Supreme Court has held that though no limitation is
prescribed, disputes must be raised within a reasonable time. A stale
claim should not be entertained. In Assistant Engineer, CAD, Kota v.
Dhan Kunwar {(2006) SCC (L&S) 1142}, it was observed that delay of
7 years in seeking reference was fatal. In Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind
Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. {(1999) 6 SCC 82}, the Apex Court
observed that while there is no limitation, relief can be moulded
considering delay; reinstatement after a long period may be inequitable
and compensation may be substituted.
31. Delay is not a jurisdictional bar; the dispute can still be referred.
However, relief may be denied or modified, reinstatement may be
refused and instead a lump-sum compensation may be awarded, back
wages may be restricted or denied and the underlying principle behind
18
the same is that a Court is expected to balance the equities, on the one
hand, the workman should not suffer injustice merely because of lack of
limitation and on the other, the employer should not face hardship of
reinstating someone after decades when industrial peace and records
have moved on. Delay by the workman in challenging termination does
not bar the dispute under the ID Act, but it seriously affects the relief. A
stale claim may result in denial of reinstatement and grant of
compensation only.
32. What can be culled out from the above discussion is that no straitjacket
formula can be laid with respect to the questions referred and the same
cannot be answered settling the issues once for all, and the questions, if
raised in any particular case, has to be dealt with keeping in view the
over all facts situation of that particular case.
33. The reference made by the learned Division Bench stands answered
accordingly.
34. Registry is directed to list these appeals before the Bench having the
Roster to decide the same on merits.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed by
AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2025.08.29
17:41:08 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link