RAJKUMAR S/O ROHITLAL MISHRAversusJALAGAON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

                                                   •



                    [2013] 1 S.C.R. 705


            RAJKUMAR S/O ROHITLAL MISHRA                       A
                              V.
          JALAGAON MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
            (Civil Appeal No. 855 of 2013 etc.)

                    FEBRUARY 01, 2013
                                                               B
           [T.S. THAKUR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

       Labour Laws - Termination - Of temporary daily wagers
 - Delay of 8-10 years on parl of four workmen and delay of
 2-3 years on the parl of one workman in approaching the C
 Labour Commissioner for conciliation - On failure of
 conciliation, disputes referred to Labour Courl - Award by
 Labour Court holding that termination was illegal and
 reinstatement directed - Writ Petition - Single Judge holding
 that dispute could not have been referred to Labour Courl due D
 to inordinate delay in approaching the Labour Commissioner
 - However, direction to Management to pay Rs. 10,0001- each
 to the workmen - Order upheld by Division Bench of High
 Courl- On appeal, held: Orders passed by Single Judge as
 well as Division Bench of High Courl was correct - However, E
 Rs. 10,0001- not sufficient to compensate the workmen - The
 workmen who approached the Commissioner after 8-10 years
 entitled to Rs. 50, 0001- each and who approached after 2-3
 years entitled to Rs. 1,00,0001-.

       The five appellants were temporarily employed with      F
  the respondent-Corporation on different dates on daily
  wages as and when work was available. They were
  terminated from their services on different dates.
  Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 approached the Labour
  Commissioner for conciliation after 8 to 10 years from the   G
  date of their termination. Appellant No. 5 approached the
· Labour Commissioner for conciliation after 2 to 3 years
  from the date of his termination. When the conciliation
  failed, the disputes were referred to Labour Court.
                              705                              H
             •



    706      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 1 S. C.R.

A Labour Court passed the award holding that the
  termination was illegal and directed reinstatement of the
  appellants.

       Respondent-Corporation filed Writ Petition against
  the order of Labour Court. Single Judge of High Court
8 allowed the petition and quashed the award holding that
  the dispute could not have been referred to the Labour
  Court for adjudication as there was inordinate delay in
  approaching the Labour Commissioner. However, the
  Court directed the respondent-Corporation to pay Rs.
C 10,000/- each to the appellants by way of compensation.
  In writ appeals, Division Bench of High Court upheld the
  order of Single Judge. Hence the present appeals.

          Disposing of the appeals, the Court
D
       HELD: In view of the concurrent finding recorded by
  the High Court that the appellants were temporarily
  appointed on daily wages as and when work was
  available and they were not posted on regular basis
  against sanctioned post, there is no reason and
E justification to interfere with the same. However, the
  direction for payment of Rs.10,000/- each to the appellants
  will not compensate the appellants. Hence, the appellants
  who approached for the conciliation after 8 to 10 years
  from the date of termination are entitled to a sum of
F Rs.50,000/- each whereas one of the appellants who has
  approached the Conciliation Officer within 2 to 3 years
  shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. [Para 6)
  [709-F-H; 710-A]
G        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 855
    of 2013.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 13.09.2007 of the High
    Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in LPA
    No. 142 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2410 of 2005.
H
   RAJKUMAR S/O ROHITLAL MISHRA v. JALAGAON 707
           MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                               WITH                                 A

  C.A. No. 861-864 of 2013

      Anish R. Shah, Sunil Kumar Ve~ma for the Appellant.

      Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Respondent.                         B

      The Judgment of the Court was deliveied by

      M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. The appellants have preferred these appeals against        C
 the common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench
 of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Letters Patent
 Appeals arising out of Writ Petitions whereby the order passed
 by the Learned Single Judge quashing the award passed by
 the Labour Court, Jalagaon, has been affirmed.                     D

        3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. All the
   appellants were employed with the Respondent Corporation on
   daily wages or on temporary basis. One of the appellant was
  engaged as daily coolie in Construction Department of the         E
   Corporation, some time in 1989 and his services were
  terminated after two years in 1991. Secoi1d appellant was
  appointed as casual labour in Building Department of the
  Corporation in March 1980 and his services were terminated
  in 1992. The 3rd appellant was appointed as a labourer in
  Water Supply Department of Respondent Corporation, some           F
  time in July 1996 and was terminated in May, 1997. Similarly,
  the 4th appellant was engaged as casual labourer in Building
  Department of the Respondent in January 1989 and was
  terminated in December, 1991. The 5th appellant was
  appointed as supervisor in March 1989 and his services were       G
  terminated in 1991. Four of the appellants approached the
, Labour Commissioner (Conciliation officer) some time in 2001
  and the 5th appellant approached ttie conciliation officer some
  time in 2000. When the conciliation failed the dispute was
. referred to Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the       H
    708     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A termination of services was illegal. The Labour Court passed
  an award holding the termination as illegal and directed
  reinstatement of the appellants. Aggrieved by the said order
  the Respondent-Corporation moved the High Court by filing writ
  petitions. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties,
B allowed the writ petitions and quashed the award passed by
  the Labour Court. However, the Respondent - Corporation was
  directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each to the appellants by way of
  compensation. The learned Single Judge noticed that out of
  five, four appellants approached the Labour Commissioner for
c conciliation after 8 to 10 years from the date of termination of
  service. Only the 5th appellant approached the Labour
  Commissioner after three years and ten months from the date
  of termination of service. The learned Single Judge, following
  the earlier decisions of this Court held that there had been gross
0 and inordinate delay in approaching the Labour Commissioner
  and, therefore, the dispute could not have been referred to the
  Labour Court for adjudication.

       4. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the Labour
  Court had committed serious error of law in passing the award
E of reinstatement. Accordingly, the award was quashed with a
  direction to the Respondent Corporation to pay Rs.10,000/-
  each to the appellants by way of compensation. All the five
  appellants dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by
  the learned Single Judge filed Letters Patent Appeals which
F were numbered as 140-144 of 2007. The Division Bench
  noticed the undisputed facts that all the appellants were
  temporarily employed on daily wages or temporary basis, and
  that their services were terminated after they worked for five
  years. It was further noticed that delay in approaching the
G conciliation officer was totally unexplained and there is nothing
  on record to infer that the appellants were continuously
  approaching the Corporation for their reinstatement in service.
  The Division Bench, therefore, while dismissing the appeals
  observed:
H             "We also agree with the learned Single Judge that
      RAJKUMAR S/O ROHITLAL MISHRA v. JALAGAON 709
        MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
         there is another stumbling block in the path of workers/          A
         appellants. Admittedly, they were temporary workers doing
         the job on daily wages, as and when work was available.
         It is not their case that they were posted on any regular
         vacant posts, nor it is their case that they had gone through
         due process of selection. In the light of ratio laid down by      B
         the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court
         in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others
         vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1991,
         the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that no
         remedy is available to the workers since they were not the        c
         workers appointed on regular vacant posts by due process
         of selection."

           5. We have heard Mr. Anish R. Shah and Shivaji M.
    Jadhav, learned counsel for the appearing parties. Mr. Shah,
    counsel for the appellant contended that the courts below have         D
    erred in holding that the Labour Court ought not to have passed
    an award of reinstatement in a case where the appellants
    approached for conciliation about 8-10 years of the termination.
    It is submitted that while making the aforesaid observation the
    courts below failed to appreciate that the appellants were             E
    continuously making representation to the Respondent-
    Corporation and only on the basis of the assurance given by
    the Respondent Corporation the appellant had not taken any
    steps to enforce their right through the process of the court.
                                                                           F
           6. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the
     learned Single Judge and Division Bench in appeal that the
     appellants were temporarily appointed on daily wages as and
    when work was available and they were not posted on regular
     basis against sanctioned post, we do not find any reason and          G
    justification to interfere with the orders passed by the two courts.
1
1 · However, we are of the view that the direction for payment of
1

    Rs.10,000/- each to the appellants will not compensate the
    appellants. Hence, the appellants who approached for the
    conciliation after 8 to 1O years from the date of termination are      H
    710      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 1 S.C.R.


A entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- each whereas one of the
  appellants namely Rajkumar Rohitlal who has approached the
  Conciliation Officer within 2 to 3 years shall be entitled to get
  a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

        7. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single
8
    Judge is modified to that extent. These appeals are,
    accordingly disposed of.

    KJ<.T.                                  Appeals disposed of.