| CITATION | (2006)1 SCC479 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 8th December 2005 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | U.P. State Brasswer corporation Ltd. & Anr |
| RESPONDENT | Uday Narain Pandey |
| BENCH | S.B.Sinha &P.K. Balasubramanyan |
INTRODUCTION:
This is a landmark case which takes Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (which is equivalent to Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ) into account. In this case the respondent Mr. Udai Narain Pandey was wrongfully terminated from services without due notice and salary thereof . This case looks into step by step events which transpired since 23rd July 1984 which includes judgments by the Labour Court, High Court and Supreme Court of India.
FACTS:
Mr. Udai Narain Pandey (respondent) on 23rd July 1984 was employed in a project known as Project Peetal Basti by U.P. State Brassware Corporation (appellant) and his work was to look after construction of building, cement loading and unloading. Upon his deployment the respondent worked from 23.7.1984 till 8.1.1987 until his redeployment in another project under Non-Ferrous Rolling Mill under order dated 12/13.2.1987 by the respondent. His work under the new project started from 31.3.1987.
Upon expiry of his tenure, appellants services for the company were terminated. For this the Labour Court in 31.10.1991 judgement passed order in favour of respondent and ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent w.e.f from 1.4.1987 and also ordered them to pay entire arrears within 30 days of judgement along with litigation cost of INR 50.
The Appellants filed writ petition before Allahabad High Court in May 1992 stating that the respondent was not a permanent employee of the company and his services would end after his work which was mentioned under their order dated 12/13.2.1987. Once again the High Court passed an order in favour of the respondent and awarded him ten thousand rupees.
Later the Appellants filed a writ petition before The Supreme Court Of India.
ISSUE:
Here it needed to be decided whether the Appellant had lawfully terminated services of Respondent in this case ? Whether the Respondent is entitled to get compensation?
Is the Respondent entitled to get paid for the days he did not work ? Is the provision of ‘No Work , No Pay applicable here ?
ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT:
Appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Ms. Rachana Srivastava put forward certain points. The counsel contended that for a contractual worker for a fixed period, Section 6- N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable in this case. Since the factory was closed on 26.3.1993 as per Government Order, GO No. 395/18 Niryat-3151/90 dated 17.11.1990 , the judgement of the Labour Court and High Court were incorrect. Applying the principle of ‘no work no pay’, the counsel argues that since Respondent did not work, he was not entitled to any wages and because of that the order from the Labour Court and High Court for compensation is wholly illegal.
ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT:
Appearing on behalf of Respondent, Mr. Bharat Sangal argued that Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies to the workmen working in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He also argued that although the establishment was closed in 26.3.1993 as per Government order because his services was terminated w.e.f 1.4.1987 – the respondent was entitled to get wages for entire period from 1.4.1987 till 26.3.1993 along with the compensation which he is supposed to get under U.P Industrial Disputes Act. Since he was lawfully employed in appointment order of 12/13.2.1987 , upon his termination from service after 1.4.1987 the respondent was not paid compensation in terms of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
The counsel also made reference to a few cases like Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. [(1979) 1 SCR 563] – this case covers belief that an employee can be reinstated in service if his termination is found invalid.
J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Another [(1998) 9 SCC 559] – this case covers the belief that when workers are ready and willing to work, the plea of ‘no work no pay’ as prayed for should not be applied.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court Of India took judgments and orders of the Labour Court and the High Court into consideration but set aside the amount of compensation that was ordered in their judgements. It ordered the Appellant to pay Respondent 25% of the total back wages as arrears and compensation in terms of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Already paid amount will be adjusted with the amount payable in terms of this judgement.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court emphasised that it cannot give blanket judgements to all similar cases but it will keep things in a way to mould that into the existing scenario. It stressed the fact that ordering employers to pay salary to the employee when the employee had not worked is not just and it will put a burden on the employee but if that is not done the burden’s effect would be more on the employee if he is wrongly terminated from service.
REFERENCE:
Written by Mita Sarker an intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments