TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes without saying that the Respondents would be entitled to wages and other remunerations in terms of the interim order passed by the High Court so long they have actually worked. We, furthermore, hope and trust that in all future appointments, the Appellant shall strictly follow the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules. Thus the impugned order modified by directing that the respondent shall be compensated by payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/- instead of the order for reinstatement with back wages. - Appeal (civil) 2410 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2006 - S.B. Sinha and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ. JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. The respondent herein was appointed initially for a period of 89 days in the post of Juni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not apply pursuant to the said advertisement. Before the Labour Court, the appellant herein has raised a plea that the appointment of the respondent being ad hoc in nature and furthermore on a contract basis as envisaged under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, her services were liable to be terminated in terms thereof. By reason of the impugned Award dated 21.5.2003, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent with back wages on the premise that she had completed 240 days of work during a period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of termination of her services and in view of the fact that the conditions laid down under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. Her services used to be terminated on the expiry of 89 days on regular basis. However, it is noticed that she used to be appointed after a gap of one or two days upon completion of each term. Such an action on the part of the Appellant cannot be said to be bona fide. The High Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant herein stating : "It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid plea raised at the hands of the management on account of the fact that the factual position, which has not been disputed, reveals that the respondent-workman was repeatedly engaged on 89 days basis. It is, therefore, clear that the intention of the management was not to engage the respondent workman for a specified period, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 20.1.1992 to 7.2.1992 and for a period of 11 days from 17.2.1992 to 27.2.1992. We, therefore, are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, interests of justice would be sub-served if in the place of reinstatement with back wages, a lump sum amount is directed to be paid by way of compensation. This order is being passed keeping in view the fact that the respondent has not worked since 1992. The post on which she may have been working must have also been filled up. It is wholly unlikely that respondent in the meantime had not been working anywhere else, since the respondent had not placed any material on record to show that she had not been working. This Court in a number of decisions has categorically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions of this Court probably having regard to the changes in the policy decisions of the government in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalization, privatization and outsourcing is evident. In Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya Anr., this Court noticed Raj Kumar (supra) and Hindustan Tin Works (supra) but held: "As already noted, there was no application of mind to the question of back wages by the Labour Court. There was no pleading or evidence whatsoever on the aspect whether the respondent was employed elsewhere during this long interregnum. Instead of remitting the matter to the Labour Court or the High Court for fresh consideration at this distance of time, we feel that the issue relating to payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein were appointed in a project work. The said decision has been distinguished by this Court in various decisions including Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. And Another v. Digambara Rao and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 262] which in turn has been followed in a large number of decisions. However, there cannot be any dispute that provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. We are, however, of the opinion that instead and in place of issuing a direction for reinstatement of service, interests of justice shall be sub-served if compensation of Rs.30,000/- per person is directed to be paid. It goes without saying that the Respondents would be entitled to wages and other remunerations in terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
