Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the finding that notice‑pay and retrenchment compensation were not offered, but held that the conclusion regarding 240 days of continuous service was unfounded, and consequently ordered reinstatement without back wages as the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere.

Summary

Jawahar Lal was engaged on a casual basis as a Survey Boy by National Thermal Power Corporation from 3 October 1977 until his termination on 15 February 1981. He claimed that his termination was illegal because the employer did not give prior notice, notice‑pay or retrenchment compensation, invoking Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court held that he had completed more than one year of service, that the employer had not complied with Section 6N, and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the employer’s writ petition, upholding the Labour Court’s award. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court’s conclusion that the employee had completed 240 continuous days in a calendar year was unsupported, but accepted the factual finding that no notice‑pay or retrenchment compensation was offered. Noting that the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere, the Court modified the relief to reinstatement without any back wages. The appeal was therefore allowed in part.

Issues considered

Whether the employee had completed the requisite 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the employer complied with the statutory requirements of notice, notice‑pay and retrenchment compensation.
Whether an alternative job was offered to the employee and whether its refusal affects the validity of termination.
Whether the termination order is void and what relief, if any, is appropriate.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 4K, s. 6N

Subjects

Labour lawTermination of serviceNotice payRetrenchment compensationSection 6NReinstatementBack wagesCasual employmentU.P. Industrial Disputes Act

Judgment

.~
NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPN. A
~
v.
JA WAHAR LAL AND ANR.

MARCH 28, 2007

[DR. ARinT PASA YAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B

-i Labour Laws:
-1-

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
c
s.6N-Termination of services of workman-No salary for one month
in lieu ofnotice offered-No retren~hment compensation offered-Held, taking
note of the fact that workman was engaged elsewhere gainfully, direction of
reinstatement is maintained but without back wages.

Respondent no. 1 was engaged on casual basis as Survey Boy by the D

.
..,,
appellant-Corporation on 3.10.1977 • His services were terminated on
15.2.1981. A reference under section 4-K of the U.P. Indpstrial Disputes
Act, 1947 was made to the Labour Court which held that the worker had
completed more than one year of service and requirements of section 6N of
the Act, having not been complied with, the order of termination was void. It E
directed reinstatement of the worker with full back wages. The writ petition
of the employer having been dismissed by the High Court, it filed the present
appeal

Allowing .he appeal in part, the Court
-'
F
HELD: The conclusion by the High Court that the worker had completed

• more than 240 days _!!Ontinuous service in one calendar year was arrived at
without any basis. The finding of the Labour Court that no alternative job
was offered, accepted by the High Court, is also contrary to the record. But
the finding of the Labour Court and the High Court is to the effect that there
was no material to show that salary for one month in lieu of the notice and G
retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman, which be refused to
accept. These are findings of fact and the appellant could not refer to any
material to take a contrary view. Therefore, the orders of the Labour Coprt
';I
and the High Court appear to be justified. In the circumstances, taking note
479- H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A of the fact that the worker was engaged gainfully elsewhere, the direction for
reinstatement is maintained but without any back wages.
[Paras 9 and 10) (482-A-D)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1600 of2007.

B From the Final Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Pet:tion No. 10196 of 1983.

S.K. Dhingra and Shefali Dhingra for the Appellants

Bharat Sangal for the Respondents.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Leave gra.'lted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by the learned
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed
D by the appellant.

Background facts in a _nutshell are as follows:

A reference, under Section 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Act'), was made to the Labour
E court, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'). The following
disputes was referred for adjudication "whether termination of services of Sri
Jawahar Lal S/o Sri Bapai, Survey Boy on 15 .2.1981 by the employer was just
and/or legal?"

According to applicant-Jawahar Lal, he was employed by the present
F appellant with effect from 3.10.1977 as a Survey Boy and remained in
continuance of service till the termination of service. He demanded for
permanency stating that he is. entitled to be declared permanent as per the
existing rule. He claimed that his 'services were terminated without assigning
any reason, without any prior notice or pay or retrenchment compensation
G and, therefore, there was violation of Section 6N of the U.P. Act. Stand of
the present appellant was that the reference was illegal, the workman had not
made any demand for re-appointment he had also not preferred any appeal
under the Certified Standing Order. He·was engaged on casual basis at the
rate of Rs.6/- per day when the survey work was necessary and when the 'y
survey work was over he was offered another job which he did not accept.
H He was also given notice-pay in lieu of one month notice and retrenchment
NATIONAL THERMALPOWERCORPN.v.JAWAHARLAL[PASAYAT,J.] 481
compensation which he refused to accept. A
The applicant - Jawahar Lal filed a rejoinder affidavit stating that the
appeal can be filed only in respect of orders passed under Rule 20 of the
Standing Order. Since he had worked for more than 240 days, observance of
the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Act was necessary. The Labour
Court came to hold that there was no refusal to accept the notice and pay B
as claimed, the applicant had completed more than one year of service and
requirements of Section 6N of the U.P. Act had not been complied with.
Accordingly the order of termination was held to be void, it was directed that
applicant was to be reinstated with full back wages. A writ petition was filed
challenging correctness of the award. C
In support of the writ petition several points were urged. It was
specifically urged that the respondent-Jawahar Lal refused to accept notice-
pay or compensation. It was also submitted that he was offered alternative
job and that without any basis it was concluded that the applicant-Jawahar
Lal had completed more than 240 days' continuous service in one calendar D
year. The present respondents supported the order of the Labour court
before the High Court. The High Court noted that there was no material to
prove offer of salary for one month in lieu of notice, retrenchment compensation
and the refusal thereof. It was also observed that there was no material to
show that alternative employment was offered and that the application had
completed 240 days' continuous service in one calendar year. The writ petition E
was dismissed.

In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the survey work was completed in February 18, 1981. He was offered
notice and retrenchment pay and alternative employment were offered on
14.2.1981, which he had refused and therefore retrenchment was done on
F
15.2.1981. The appellant came to kn~w about the employment of the Jawahar
Lal in another concern. The workman on 26.5.1984 admitted his employment.
It is submitted that the order of the High Court is vitiated as conclusions,
without any foundation, have been arri.ved at and when the materials on
record prove otherwise the High Court should not have come to inferential G
conclusions.

Learned counsel for the respondent sui.iported the order of the High
Court.

We find that some of the inferences by the High Court are based on H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A. no material, for example the conclusion that the applicant-Jawahar Lal had
completed more than 240 days continuous service in one calendar year. The
said conclusion was arrived at without any basis. The Labour Court had also
not offered any basis for coming to such conclusion further. The finding of
the Labour Court that no alternative job was offered was accepted by the
High Court. This is on the face of the material placed on record to show that
B he was offered alternative employment. The applicant-Jawahar Lal in his
counter affidavit before this Court has accepted that the alternative offered
was with the contractor, and therefore he did not accept it.

But the finding of the Labour Court and High Court is to the effect that '"'"1
C there was no material to show that salary for one month in lieu of the notice
and retrenchment compensation was offered which Jawahar Lal refused to
accept. These are findings of fact and learned counsel for the appellant could
not refer to any material to take a contrary view. Therefore, the orders of the
Labour Court and the High Court appear to be justified. In the circumstances
taking note of the fact that the applicant-Jawahar Lal was engaged gainfully
D elsewhere, the direction for reinstatement is maintained but without any back
wages.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with 110 order as to costs.

RP. Appeal allowed.