Supreme Court of India
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR.versusSUNIL KUMAR SINGH NEGI
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 347
- Decided
- 12 March 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A High Court order that dismisses a writ petition without reasons is unsustainable and must be set aside; the matter must be remitted for fresh disposal with a reasoned order.
Summary
Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, a daily‑wage worker of the Uttarakhand Horticulture Department, was ordered by the Labour Court in 2001 to be reinstated and to receive back wages of Rs 6,000. The Department sent a letter asking him to join work at the Fruit Preservation Centre, Pauri, but he did not report and instead filed a claim of Rs 92,842 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) alleging failure to reinstate him. The ALC directed the Department to send another joining letter, which was also ignored, and eventually ordered the Department to pay the claimed amount, holding that reinstatement should have been at his previous place of work. The Department challenged this order in the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition by a cryptic order without giving reasons. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, holding that a reasoned order is an indispensable requirement of natural justice, and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal with a speaking order.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court order dismissing a writ petition without providing reasons is sustainable under the principles of natural justice and the requirement of a speaking order.
- Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in the merits of the ALC's direction to pay the claimant.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Subjects
Labour lawTermination of serviceReinstatementIndustrial disputeRight to reasonSpeaking orderNatural justiceWrit petitionSupreme Court
Judgment
A
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 804
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR.
•
II. i'
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH NEGI
(Civil Appeal No. 1924 of 2008) ~
I..;
MARCH 12, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Labour Law - Termination from service - Labour Court
directing reinstatement - Employee issuing joining letter in .Jr
c compliance of the 'award - Instead of joining, employee filing
._
claim for money for non-reinstatement - Employee not joining
despite employer issuing another letter for joining and l
Assistant Labour Commissioner asking him to join - ~
l
Subsequently Assistant Labour Commissioner directing
payment of the amount claimed on the ground that
D
reinstatement should have been at the same place from where
the services were terminated - Writ petition - Dismissal of by
cryptic order - On appeal, held: Since the order of High Court >--
<(
was non-reasoned without taking into consideration stand of
the employer, is not sustainable - Matter remitted to High Court.
E
Judgment - Reasons in - requirement of- Held: Right
to .reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system -
It is requirement of natural justice.
Respondent had raised industrial dispute against the
F appellant. Labour Court directed his reinstatement and
..,,,
payment of back wages and expenses amounting to Rs. ,..
6000/-. In compliance of the award, Department by a letter
asked the responden·~ to join the duties. Respondent
instead of joining, ~pproached Assistant Labour
G Commissioner (ALC) lodging a claim of Rs. 92,842/- on
the ground that ·Department failed to reinstate him: ALC
directed the Department to give one more letter asking
him. to join. The same was done, but despite that,
respondent did not join. ALC himself asked the >-- I
H 804 }
'
e•
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 805
SINGH NEGI
._,._
respondent to join the duties. Respondent filed rejoinder A
stating that the department had deliberately asked him to
join the work at different place with a view to harass him.
ALC directed the appellant to pay the amount claimed by
the respondent holding that respondent should have
been reinstated at the same place from where his services B
were terminated. Department filed writ petition. The writ
petition was dismissed by cryptic order. Hence the present
appeal.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to
High Court, the Court c
HELD: 1.1 In view of the specific stand taken by the
Department in the affidavit giving the factual details, the
cryptic order passed by the High Court cannot be
sustained. The absence of reasons has rendered the High
D
....(_
Court order not sustainable. [Paras 6] [808-F]
.. 1.2 Right to reason is an indispensable part of a
sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court.
Another rationale is that the affected party can know why E
the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for
the order made. [Para 8] [809-A, B]
State of UP vs. Battan and Ors. 2001 (10) SCC 607;
':.(
-. State of Maharashtra vs. Vithal RaoPritirao Chawan, 1981 (4) F
SCC 129; Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987
(2) sec 222; Raj Kishore Jha VS. State of Bihar and Ors. 2003
(11) sec 519 - relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
G
1924 of 2008
_.(_ From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2006 of
the High Court of Uttranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition (MIS)
~.J. 820 of 2005.
H
e•
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
A AbhishekAttrey andAnuvrat Sharma fortheAppellants ..
Puneet Aggrawal and Dr. Kailash Chand for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final
order dated 26.07.2006 passed by the High Court of
Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.820 of 2005
c whereby the High Court dismissed the same affirming the award
of the Labour Court.
3) Brief facts:
The respondent was engaged by the appellant -
D Horticulture Department as daily wager on 07.09.1987 and
thereafter when the work was available he was engaged from
,)...
time to time. However, he did not work for 240 days in any )
calendar year. He did not work as daily wager w.e.f. 09. 7.1992
..
of his own. In 2001, the respondent after about nine years, raised·
E an ~ndustrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court,
Dehradun and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 45 of
2001. On 23.07.2001, the Labour Court directed the department
to reinstate the respondent and to pay him Rs.5000/- by way of
back wages and Rs.1000/- by way of expenses of the case. In·
F pursuance of the aforesaid award, Rs. 6000/- was deposited
and the. respondent was asked to work as daily wager in
Government Fruit Preservation Centre, Pauri under the
.Department of Horticulture & Food Processing, Pauri by letter
dated 24.09.2002. However, the respondent rieitherjoined in
the said Department for quite a long period of one month nor
G gave any reply to the said letter. Instead of joining the work, the
respondent approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner
by filing a petition under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
lodged a claim of Rs.92,842/- on the ground that he has not ·
been provided the work and as $UCh he is entitled to the salary
H w.e.f. February 2002 to January, 2005. In the said petition, an
•
e
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 807
SINGH NEGI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
-t- objection was filed by the appellant stating therein that the A
respondent himself is guilty of disobedience and he himself did
not come to join the place of work despite th~ letter date~
24.09.2002. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Garhwal
Mand al~ Dehradun vide order dated 1.10.2003 directed the·
appellant to send one more letter to the respondent by registered 8
post calling upon him to join the place of work. In compliance of
the order, a letter was sent to the respondent on 08.10.2003.
On 31.12.2004, the Assistant Labour Commissioner himself
advised the respondent to join the work. Instead of joining the
work, the respondent filed his rejoinder stating therein that the c
employer has provided the work at Pauri deliberately with a view
to harass him. On 27 .05.2005, the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun directed the
appellant to pay Rs.92,842/- to the respondent holding that the
appellant ought to have reinstated the respondent at the same
D
place where he was earlier working and from where his services
.,
....... were terminated and holding that the respondent has been
asked to work at Pauri to nullify the award passed by the Labour
Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed Civil
Writ Petition (MIS) No. 820 of 2005 in the High Court of
Uttaranchal at Nainital and the same was dismissed on E
26.07.2006. Against the aforesaid order, the appell.ants
preferred this appeal by way of special leave.
4) Heard Mr. Abhishek Attrey, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, learned counsel F
..... ~ appearing for the respondent.
5) In order to find an answer whether the impugned order
of the High Court is sustainable, it is relevant to refer to the
assertion made by the State of Uttaranchal in their petition
before the High Court. It was stated that though respondent No G
1 therein was engaged as daily wager on 07.09.1987 and
thereafter when the work was available, he did not work for 240
'""' days in any calendar year. Pursuant to the award of the Labour
Court dated 23.07.2001, the Horticulture Department deposited
an amount of Rs.6,000/- and the workman was asked to work H
•
e
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C R
A as daily wager in Government Food Preservatio~ Centre, Pauri
i-'
under the Department of Horticulture and Food Processing. He
did not join the work as requested but he approa.ched the
Assistant Labour Commissioner by filing a petition and lodged
a claim of Rs.92,842/-. The Assistant Labour Commissioner
B himself advised the workman to join place of work at Pauri.
However, the worker ignored the advice of the Assistant Labour
Commissioner. Thereafter, the very same officer directed the
Department to pay Rs.92,842/- holding that the Department
ought to have reinstated the worker at the same place where
c his services were terminated. In several paragraphs, the
Department highlighted that the worker alone was guilty of not
joining the place of work despite repeated letters sent by them
as such there was no justification to award a claim of Rs.92,842/
-. With these particulars and other details, the Horticulture and
Food Processing Department filed a writ petition NO. 820 of
D
2005 before the High Court, Uttaranchal. ~
6) Now, let us see the impugned order passed by the High •
Court, which reads as under:
"I have perused the order dated 27.05.2005 passed by
E respondent No.2 and I do not find any illegality in the order
so as to interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed."
In view of the specific stand .taken by the Department in ~-
F .....
the affidavit which we have referred above, the cryptic order
passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The absence of
reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable.
Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. vs. Battan and
Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607). About two decades back in State of
G
Maharashtra vs. Vitha/ Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC
129, the desirability of a speaking order was highlighted. The
requirement of indicating reasons has been judicially recognized >--
as imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar Lal Singh
vs. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 222.
H
•
e
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 809
SINGH NEGI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
7) In Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003) A
11 SCC 519, this Court has held that reason is the heartbeat of
every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless ..
8) Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound
judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an
application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale B
is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone
against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice
is spelling out reasons for the order made.
9) In the light of the factual details particularly with reference c
to the stand taken by the Horticulture Department at length in
the writ petition and in the light of the principles enunciated by
this Court, namely, right to reason is an indispensable part of
sound judicial system and reflect the application of mind on the
part of the court, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the D
High Court cannot be sustained.
-t,
• 10) Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court
is set aside and we remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in
accordance with law by a reasoned order. The appeal is
disposed of. No costs. We make it clear that we have not E
expressed any opinion. on the merits of the case though we
adverted to the grounds taken by the Department in their writ
petition.
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of
_,._ F
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Labour law"Sign in to search