1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8747   OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.7935/2007)

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.    Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

MAN SINGH                                  Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8748   OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9997/2007)

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.     Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

MANI RAM                                  Respondent(s)

  AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8749   OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.13183/2007)

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.     Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

SEWA RAM                                  Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.  

3. The  respondents  workmen  worked  with  the  

appellant as casual labourers on daily wages during  

the year 1984-85. Due to non-availability of work,

2

their services were terminated in the year 1986.  No  

notice  or  retrenchment  compensation  was  given  to  

them before terminating their services.  After about  

five years, they  raised an industrial dispute in  

the year 1991. The appropriate Government referred  

the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication.  

The  Labour  Court  vide  its  award  dated  27.5.2005  

ordered reinstatement of the respondents-workmen on  

the same post which they were holding at the time of  

their termination.

4. The  award  of  reinstatement  passed  by  the  

Labour  Court  was  challenged  by  the  Department  by  

filing  writ  petitions  before  the  High  Court.  The  

High Court after hearing the learned counsel for the  

parties and going through the records of this case,  

dismissed  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  

Department. The appellant is thus before this Court.  

5. This  Court  in  a  catena  of  decisions  has  

clearly  laid  down  that  although  an  order  of  

retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of  

the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an  

award of reinstatement should not be passed.  This

3

Court has distinguished between a daily wager who  

does not hold a post and a permanent employee.  

6. In view of the aforementioned legal position  

and the fact that the respondents – workmen were  

engaged as 'daily wagers' and they had merely worked  

for  more  than  240  days,  in  our  considered  view,  

relief  of  reinstatement  cannot  be  said  to  be  

justified and instead, monetary compensation would  

meet the ends of justice.   

7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by  

the High Court as also the award dated 27.5.2005  

passed by the Labour Court are set aside.  We direct  

the appellant Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs.2  

lakhs to each of the respondents in full and final  

settlement  of  their  claim,  within  six  weeks  from  

today.  In case the payment is not made within the  

aforementioned  stipulated  time,  the  amount  shall  

carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.     

4

8. These appeals are accordingly allowed to the  

aforesaid extent. The parties are directed to bear  

their own costs.    

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi; October 14, 2011.