Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Labour Court and High Court and remitted the matter to the Labour Court to reconsider the reinstatement claim, allowing parties to file relevant documents.

Summary

Santuram Yadav and other daily‑wage workers were employed as Nakedar and, facing removal, entered into a compromise with their employer that provided for reinstatement and seniority from their first appointment. The Labour Court initially awarded reinstatement, but the workers were later dismissed again. Their claim for reinstatement under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was rejected by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court on the ground that they had not worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year. The Supreme Court observed that the workers possessed documents showing the number of days worked and the compromise deed, which were not placed before the lower courts, and that these materials could not be ignored. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the Labour Court and High Court and remitted the matter to the Labour Court to reconsider the claim afresh, permitting both parties to submit relevant evidence.

Issues considered

Whether the workers satisfy the requirement of continuous service of more than 240 days in a calendar year under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the workers' claim without considering the compromise deed and other documentary evidence.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25F

Subjects

Industrial Disputes ActSection 25Fdaily wage workersreinstatementlabour courtcompromise deedcontinuous serviceprocedural fairness

Judgment

[201 OJ 2 S.C.R. 852

A SANTURAM YADAV AND ANR.
v.
SECRETARY, KRISHI UPAJ M.S. SEMETARA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos.1750-1751 of 2010)

FEBRUARY 16, 2010
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.25F - Daily wage
workers - Termination of - Claim for re-instatement -
c Dismissed by Labour Court on ground of failure of the workers
to establish that they worked for more than 240 days
continuously in one calendar year - High Court affirmed the
order of Labour Court - On facts, held: Relevant documents
and communications, though available with the workers, were
D not placed before the Labour Court and High Court - Matter
therefore remitted to Labour Court to consider the claim of the
workers afresh.

Appellants were working on daily wage basis. At the
threat of removal, they approached the Labour Court. A
E compromise was entered into between the parties in
terms of which the respondent-management agreed to
reinstate the appellants. The Labour Court passed award
in terms of the compromise.

F The appellants were later dismissed from service.
The claim laid by them for re-instatement was dismissed
by the Labour Court on ground of their failure to establish
that they worked for more than 240 days continuously in
one calendar year. The High Court affirmed the order of
G Labour Court.

In appeal to this Court, the appellants stated that
though they had adequate materials in support of their
claim for reinstatement, however, it was not placed before

H 852
SANTURAM YADAV AND ANR. v. SECRETARY, 853
KRISHI UPAJ M.S. SEMETARA

the Labour Court and the High Court, and accordingly A
prayed that the same be considered by this Court in order
to render substantial justice to them.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: The compromise memo between the 8
workmen and the management, followed by the award of
the Labour Court as well as the materials furnished about
the number of days on which the appellants worked and
the wages received, clearly support their stand. In view
of the peculiar facts, namely, the stand taken by the C
Management in the form of compromise agreeing to
reinstate and provide seniority to the appellants from the
date of their first appointment, as evidenced in the
"Compromise Deed", the information/materials
mentioned above cannot be ignored lightly, though not D
projected before the Labour Court and the High Court.
Considering the abundant materials which were
unfortunately not placed before the Labour Court and in
order to give an opportunity to these workmen, the order
of the Labour Court, and the order of the High Court are E
set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court
with a direction to consider the claim of the workmen
afresh. The workmen are permitted to place relevant
documents in support of their claim before the Labour
Court. The respondents/management are also permitted F
to place the relevant material, if any, in support of their
defence. Both the workmen and the management are
permitted to place their relevant materials in support of
their respective stand and thereafter, the Labour Court is
directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in G
accordanc~ with law, after affording opportunity to both
parties. [Para 9) [858-B-H; 859-A-B]

Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi
and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, referred to.
H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 2 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference:
(2006) 4 sec 1 referred to Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
1750-1751 of 2010.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.11.2006 of the
Learned Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh
at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 5508 of 2006 and final order
dated 6.11.2007 passed by Division Bench in Writ Appeal
c (P.R.) No. 6823 of 2007

Akshat Shrivastava, lnderjeet Yadav, Raj Kumar Gupta and
Dharam Bir Raj Vohra for the Appellants.

Milind Kumar, A. Patnaik and D.B. Ray for the Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1 Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the final order dated
E 02.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge of the High
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 5508 of
2006 and final order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the Division
Bench of the same High Court in W.A. (P.R.) No. 6823 of 2007
whereby the "High Court dismissed the writ petition and the writ
F appeal filed by the appellants herein.

3. Brief Facts:

According to the appellants, on 05.08.1989, they were
selected on the temporary post of Nakedar by a duly constituted
G Selection Committee on the pay-scale determined by the
Collector. At the threat of removal, the appellants approached
the Labour Court in 1994. At this stage, respondent No.1 and
. the appellants filed a joint petition dated 10.01.1995 for
compromise in which respondent No.1 agreed to reinstate the
H
SANTURAM YADAV AND ANR. v. SECRETARY, 855
KRISHI UPAJ M.S. SEMETARA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

appellants and also to grant seniority and other benefits from A
the date of their initial appointment that is 05.08.1989. On the
basis of the compromise petition, the award dated 27.04.1995
was passed by the Labour Court, Durg, directing the
respondent-therein to reinstate the appellants herein. Again in
2000, when an attempt was made to remove the appellants B
arbitrarily, initially it was the High Court which granted status
quo in their favour and thereafter the higher authorities
intervened and prevented the respondents from victimizing the
appellants. In view of the said efforts, the respondents once
again ordered reinstatement of the appellants on 06.01.2001. C

4. Despite such voluminous material demonstrating the
continuous working of the appellants with the respondents,
according to the appellants they were dismissed on the ground
of failure to establish that they worked for more than 240 days D
continuously in one calendar year. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellants approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.
By the order Impugned, the High Court, after pqinting out that
the appellants were on daily wage basis and have not
completed 240 days in one calendar year which is the condition E
precedent for attracting the provisions of Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confirmed the order of the Labour
Court and dismissed their writ petition. The said order is under
challenge in these appeals.
F
5. Heard Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Milind Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondents.

6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the G
appellants-workmen fairly stated that because of the ignorance
though the appellants were having adequate materials in the
form of documents and communications from the respondents/
employer, they were not properly placed the same before the

H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 2 S.C.R.

A Labour Court in support of their claim for reinstatement. He also
submitted that even before the High Court these additional
documents were not placed for consideration and requested
this Court to consider the same in order to render substantial
justice to the workmen. The appellants have filed a separate
B application for taking those additional documents Annexures
P-18 and P-19 on record. Considering the plight of the
workmen, we perused the said Annexures P-18 and P-19 which
contain details such as number of days worked in a month,
salary paid by the respondents commencing from year 1994
c ending with 2004. The documents in Annexures P-18 and P-
19 clearly show the number of days on which both the
appellants worked.

7. Apart from the above details, the appellants have also
D pressed into service Annexure-P4, the terms and conditions of
compromise entered into between the appellants/workmen and
the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Semetara/Management. Since
Annexure-P4 was pressed into service by the workmen, it is
useful to refer the same:
E "ANNEXURE P/4

BEFORE THE HON'BLE LABOUR COURT, DURG
Case No. 18/1994 l.D. Act
Date of Institution: 10.01.1995
F
Bairam Singh Rajput, Clerk
Santuram Yadav, Nakedar
Santosh Yadav, Bhritya .... First Party

G AND

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Semetara .... Second Party

Both parties respectfully submits that the both parties

H
SANTURAM YADAV AND ANR. v. SECRETARY, 857
KRISHI UPAJ M.S. SEMETARA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

have arrived at compromise under the following terms and A
conditions

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF COMPROMISE

1. That the second party will reinstate the first party
workmen into their services and they will be granted 8
seniority from the date of their first appointment.

2. That towards the symbolic backwages for the -
period in the meantime, the second party will pay
a sum of Rs.1/- per workmen. C

3. That the first party workmen will get salary from the
date of their joining of duty and as per the Circular
No. 2546 dated 28.02.1994 of the Hon'ble
Collector, Durg in the following manner
D
Bairam Singh Rajput, Clerk - Rs. 1412/-

Santu Ram Yadav, Nakedar - Rs. 996/-

Santosh Kumar Yadav, Bhritya - Rs. 996/-
E
Per month. Apart from the aforesaid Circular, the Circulars
issued by the Hon'ble Collector in this reference, shall also
be applicable on both parties.

It is respectfully prayed that an Award may be passed under F
the terms and conditions of the aforesaid compromise.

Prayed accordingly.

Durg
G
Date: Advocate for the Second Party

Applicant:

1. Bairam Singh Rajput, Clerk
H

'.• ~!\ .. t:~ .
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 2 S.C.R.

A 2. Santu Ram Yadav, Nakedar

3. Santosh Kumar Bhritya

Advocate for the First Party"

B 8. Based on the compromise between the appellants and
the respondent-management, the Labour Court, Durg by award
dated 27.04.1995 while making a reference about justifiability
of 'the termination of service of these workmen recorded the
compromise deed and directed the management to reinstate
c Santuram Yadav and Santosh Yadav, the appellants herein.·

9. On going through Annexure P-4, compromise memo
between the workmen and the management, followed by an
award dated 27.04.1995 of the Labour Court, Durg as well as
the materials furnished in the form of Annexures P-18 and P-
D 19 about the number of days on which both the appellants
worked and the wages received clearly support their stand. We
are conscious of the fact of the implication of Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and
Others vs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. However,
E in view of the peculiar facts, namely, the stand taken by the
Management in the form of compromise agreeing to reinstate
and provide seniority from the date of their first appointment
05.08.1989, as evidenced in the "Compromise Deed", we are
of the view that the information/materials mentioned above
F cannot be ignored lightly though not projected before the
Labour Court and the High Court. Considering the abundant
materials which were unfortunateJy not placed before the Labour
Court and in order to give an opportunity to these workmen, we
set aside the order of the Labour Court, Durg dated 08.08.2006
G in case No. 56/ID AcUReference/2005 and the order of the
High Court dated 02.11.2006 in Writ Petition No. 5508 of 2006
and order dated 06.11.2007 in W.A. (P.R.) No. 6823 of 2007
and remit the matter to the Labour Court, Durg with a direction
to consider the claim of the workmen afresh. The workmen are
H permitted to place Annexures 4, 5, 18 and 19 as well as any
iJ
'. ;;
SANTURAM YADAV AND ANR.. v. SECRETARY, 859
KRlSHI UPAJ M.S. SEMETARA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

other relevant documents in support of their claim before the A
Labour Court. The respondents/management are also
·permitted to place the relevant material, if any, in support of their
defence. Both the workmen and the management are permitted
to place their relevant materials in support of their respective
stand within a period of eight weeks and thereafter, Labour B
Court, Durg is directed to consider and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both
parties, within a period of three months thereafter.

10. The civil appeals are allowed on the above terms. No C
costs.

B.B.B. Appeals allowed.