Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 37 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the Division Bench was justified in allowing the respondent's appeal and was, therefore, justified in restoring the award of the Labour Court? Held that:- In a case of this nature, and having regard to the fact that many decades had passed in between with no evidence adduced by the respondent that whether he was gainfully employed from 1977 onwards or not, the Labour Court should have awarded lump sum money compensation to the respondent in lieu of the relief of reinstatement along with payment of back wages and continuity of service by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11A of the Act, rather than to direct his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Having regard to the peculiar nature of the respondent's appointment and rendering of services by him for a very short duration (just 240 days only) and with no evidence as to whether he worked for gains or not after his services came to an end in 1977, this was a fit case where the Labour Court should have awarded lump sum compensation to the respondent instead of directing his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. The Labour Court was empowered to pass such order by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11A of the Act. This has also been the view of this Court in such type of cases. While modifying the impugned order and the award of the Labour Court, we direct the appellant to pay a sum of ₹ 50,000/in lump sum to the respondent (employee) by way of compensation in lieu of respondent’s right to claim reinstatement in service - appeal allowed in part.
|