1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  No(s). 5978  OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).11267 of 2016)

DHARAMRAJ NIVRUTTI KASTURE                         Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANR.               Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

Leave granted.

(2) This appeal arises out of judgment and order of the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.3353 of 2002

dated 07.01.2016 in and by which the High Court has set aside

the order of the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal of

reinstatement of the appellant.  However, the High Court has

directed the respondent-Zilla Parishad to pay compensation of

Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement of the appellant and in

full quit of all claims.

(3) The appellant was appointed as peon in Zilla Parishad on

23.03.1983 on daily-wage basis for a period of two months and

his services were discontinued from 31.12.1987 by Order dated

07.01.1988.  The appellant filed a complaint under Sections 28

read with clause 1(a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of Schedule IV of

the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of

Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.  The appellant has alleged

2

that he has completed 240 days in each year and his services

were terminated by the respondent-Zilla Parishad in violation

of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus

the appellant has prayed for reinstatement with back wages in

the service and with continuity of service.

(4) The  Labour  Court  in  its  judgment  dated  23.10.2000  set

aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of

the appellant with continuity of service.  The Labour Court,

however, refused the back wages to the appellant on the ground

that by an interim order dated 09.02.1988, the respondent-Zilla

Parishad was directed to pay 75% of the last drawn wages to the

appellant for about 12 years without work and, therefore, the

Labout Court held that the appellant would not be entitled to

the back wages.  The Revision Application (ULP) NO.56 of 2001

filed by the respondent-Zilla Parishad before the Industrial

Tribunal came to be dismissed by order dated 22.01.2002.  Being

aggrieved the respondent-Zilla Parishad preferred writ petition

before the High Court.  The High Court vide impugned order

allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of award

passed  by  the  Labour  Court  as  affirmed  by  the  Industrial

Tribunal by holding that there cannot be any direction for

reinstatement on permanent basis when the entry to the service

itself was in violation of the rules and without any public

participation.  The High Court has also held that the Labour

Court has not recorded any findings as to the unfair labour

practice nor any finding that the appellant herein was kept

temporary for years with an object of depriving him permanency.

3

Pointing  out  that  the  appellant  has  worked  till  dated

31.12.1987 and that there has been stay to his reinstatement

since 2002 and that the appellant was out of employment for

more than thirty years.  The High Court has further held that

the appellant would not be entitled to reinstatement.  However,

the High Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- in

lieu of reinstatement and in full quit of all claims.

(5) We have heard Mr. Sagar N. Pahune Patil, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant.  We have also heard Mr. Sanjay

Kharde,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent-Zilla

Parishad  and  also  perused  the  impugned  judgment  and  the

materials on record.

(6) As  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Sanjay  Kharde,  learned  counsel

appearing for the respondent-Zilla Parishad, that the appellant

was out of service for more than 32 years, it is also seen from

the  order  of  the  Labour  Court  dated  23.10.2000  that  the

appellant has been paid 75% of the last drawn wages for about

12 years without work.

(7) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

the fact that the appellant has been out of employment for more

than three decades, we are not inclined to interfere with the

order of the High Court declining reinstatement. However, the

compensation  of  Rs.50,000/-  awarded  to  the  appellant  is

enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand).  At

this stage learned counsel for the respondent-Zilla Parishad

has submitted that an amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been

4

paid to the appellant in compliance of the impugned order. In

view of above, only the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh) shall be paid to the appellant by the respondent-

Zilla Parishad within a period of eight weeks from today.

(8) In  the  result,  the  impugned  order  is  modified  to  the

extent indicated above and the appeal is partly allowed.  There

shall be no order as to costs.    

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (A.S. BOPANNA)

NEW DELHI, JULY  31, 2019.