Supreme Court of India
NANDKISHORE SHRAVAN AHIRRAO versus KOSAN INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. on 10 January 2020
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R. 90
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
A
NANDKISHORE SHRAVAN AHIRRAO
v.
KOSAN INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 201-202 of 2020)
B
JANUARY 10, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law – Continuity of service – Appellant was dismissedCfrom service for causing disruption of work – The Labour Courtcame to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was harsh andgranted reinstatement in service with 25% back wages for thesurplus days – The High Court affirmed the order of reinstatementand set aside the order for payment of 25% back wages – The HighCourt also observed that the Labour Court had ‘rightly passed theDjudgment and award reinstating the respondent without continuityof service’ – On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellantcontended that the High Court was in error in misconstruing theaward of the Labour Court as having denied continuity of service –Held: Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement toEthe appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law– The award of the Labour Court did not specifically deny continuityof service – Hence, the observation of the High Court to the effectthat the Labour Court had denied continuity of service was erroneous– The appellant was entitled to continuity of service – Further, theHigh Court had no justification to set aside the award of 25% backFwages awarded by the Labour Court which was eminently fair andproper – Thus, the direction of the High Court for deletion of backwages was unsustainable – Accordingly, direction of the High Courtset aside.
Allowing the appeals, the CourtG
HELD: 1. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awardedreinstatement to the appellant, continuity of service would followas a matter of law. The award of the Labour Court does notspecifically deny continuity of service. Hence the observation of H
the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had deniedcontinuity of service is erroneous and would accordingly standcorrected in terms of what has been observed herein-above. Theappellant would be entitled of service. [Para 7] [93-B]
2. On the question of back wages, the Labour Court hadconfined the award of back wages to 25%. Having come to theconclusion that the findings in the disciplinary enquiry wasperverse, the Labour Court observed that it was a matter of recordthat the workman has been gainfully employed over a part of theperiod after dismissal, with another employer. It was in the abovecircumstances, that the entire component of back wages was notawarded to the appellant and only 25% was awarded. The HighCourt has no justification to set aside the award of 25% backwages awarded by the Labour Court which was eminently fairand proper. The direction of the High Court for deletion ofback wages is therefore unsustainable and is set aside. [Para 8][93-C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 201-202 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2013 of the High Courtof Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 8536 of 2008and order dated 24.03.2014 in Civil Application (for Condonation of delay)No. 5613 of 2013 in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 697 of 2013.
Prashant Chawdhary, Priank Adhyaru, Rameshar Prasad Goyal,Advs. for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was employed in the Assembly department ofthe respondent. He was served with a charge-sheet on 26 June 1992.The charge against the appellant was of causing disruption of workbetween 1050 am and 12 noon on 17 June 1992. Following a departmentalenquiry, the appellant was dismissed from service on 26 November1997. In pursuance of a reference made under the Industrial DisputesAct 1947, the Labour Court by its award dated 27 February 2008came to the conclusion that the findings in the enquiry were perverse; A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Athat the order of dismissal was harsh and granted reinstatement in servicewith 25% back wages for the surplus days.
3. The order of the Labour Court was questioned before theHigh Court of Gujarat by the employer. A learned Single Judge ofthe High Court, by a judgment dated 5 February 2013, partlyBallowed the Special Civil Application. While affirming the order ofreinstatement, the Single Judge set aside the order for payment of25% back wages. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal.The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal on theground that it was not maintainable.
C4. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 16 October 2015.The office report indicates that the respondent has been served.Since the respondent has failed to appear, we have proceeded to dealwith the appeal on merits.
5. The learned Single Judge held that the Labour Court rightlyDobserved that the punishment which was imposed on the appellant washarsh. It appears that even the salary of the appellant was deducted forthe period in question during which work was disrupted. However,the learned Single Judge held that the payment of back wages wouldnot follow as a matter of course upon an award of reinstatement. Hence,the direction for the payment of 25% back wages was interfered withEand set aside. The Single Judge also observed that the Labour Courthas “rightly passed the judgment and award reinstating therespondent without continuity of service”.
6. The first grievance of the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant is that the High Court was in error in misconstruingFthe award of the Labour Court as having denied continuity ofservice. We find merit in the submission. The award of the LabourCourt is in the following terms:
“The reference of second party Nandkishor Shravan Ahirrao,94, Shriram Kutir, near Chikuvadi, Post Office – Fatehnagar,GUdhna, Surat – 304220 – C/o. Bombay foods Ltd. andKosan Industries Ltd., Worker/Employee Union, Surat ishereby partly allowed.
And the first party of this case is hereby ordered that,they have to reinstate the second party in service with 25%
H
back-wages for his surplus days within 30 days from thepublication of this order.”
7. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement tothe appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of law. Theaward of the Labour Court dated 27 February 2008 does not specificallydeny continuity of service. Hence the observation of the High Court tothe effect that the Labour Court had denied continuity of service iserroneous and would accordingly stand corrected in terms of whathas been observed herein-above. The appellant would be entitled tocontinuity of service.
8. On the question of back wages, the Labour Court had confinedthe award of back wages to 25%. Having come to the conclusion thatthe findings in the disciplinary enquiry was perverse, the Labour Courtobserved that it was a matter of record that the workman has beengainfully employed over a part of the period after dismissal, between3 March 1990 to 9 September 1992 with another employer. It wasin the above circumstances, that the entire component of back wageswas not awarded to the appellant and only 25% was awarded. The HighCourt has no justification to set aside the award of 25% back wagesawarded by the Labour Court which was eminently fair andproper. The direction of the High Court for deletion of back wages istherefore unsustainable and is set aside.
9. We accordingly allow the appeals by directing that whilemaintaining the award of reinstatement, the appellant would be entitledto notional continuity of service as well as the payment of 25% backwages. Since the appellant has retired from service during the pendencyof the proceedings, his retiral dues together with payment of 25%back wages for the relevant period shall be computed and paid overto the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receiptof a certified copy of this order.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H