Page 1

1

(Non-Reportable)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO. 9278 OF 2014

The General Secretary, Coal Washeries Workers Union Dhanbad                                           ….Appellant(s)  

Vs.

Employers in relation to the Management of  Dugda Coal Washery of M/s BCCL                     …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.

The short question to be considered in this appeal in terms of

order dated 27th August 2012 passed by this Court while issuing

notice to the respondent-Management is: the quantum of the lump

sum amount which needs to be paid to the workmen concerned in

lieu of reinstatement.  

2. Briefly stated, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which

was  referred  to  the  Central  Government  Industrial  Tribunal  at

Dhanbad, for adjudication, as under:-

Page 2

2

“Whether  the  35  persons  whose  names  are shown in  the  Annexure  and who were employed by M/s.  Triveni  Engineering  Works,  a  Contractor  at Dugda Coal Washery are to be treated as workmen of M/s  BCCL  and  whether  the  demand  of  the  Coal Washeries  Workers  Union  that  these  persons  be regularized/absorbed in the services of M/s. BCCL is justified?  If  so,  to  what  relief  are  these  persons entitled?”

3. The  Industrial  Tribunal  vide  award  dated  17th June  1997,

answered the reference in favour of the appellant and directed the

Management to reinstate and regularize the concerned 35 workmen

w.e.f. 1st July 1990, with payment of 30% full back wages within

two months from the date of publication of the award in the Official

Gazette of India. The respondent-Management challenged the said

award by way of  Writ  Petition being Civil  Writ  Jurisdiction Case

No.3443/1997(R).  The learned Single Judge of  the High Court of

Jharkhand  at  Ranchi,  vide  final  judgment  dated  6th May  2003,

dismissed that  Writ  Petition and affirmed the view taken by the

Tribunal.  The respondent carried the matter in appeal by way of

Letters Patent Appeal No.422/2004 before the Division Bench. The

Division  Bench  vide  judgment  dated  5th January  2012,  did  not

doubt the correctness of the findings of the Industrial Tribunal or

the learned Single Judge on the factum of 35 persons to be treated

Page 3

3

as workmen of the respondent.  It, however, accepted the plea of the

respondent that after a lapse of more than 20 years from stoppage

of work of the subject workmen, an order of reinstatement will be

inequitable and must be eschewed. The Division Bench, therefore,

modified the award in the following terms:

“We considered  the  submission  of  the  learned counsel  for  the parties  and we are of  the  view that even  the  Labour  court  was  of  the  view  that  these workmen are not entitled to full back wages in view of the fact that they did not work and the back wages were also awarded w.e.f. 1st July 1990. The workmen worked  from  1986-1990  for  which  they  got  their salary/wages and this fact is not in dispute. Thereafter the workmen are getting the benefit of the payment of wages  in  view  of  Section  17(b)  of  the  Industrial Disputes Act,  1947 in view of  the  award dated 19th July  2007.  In  view  of  the  above  fact  that  these workmen are not working since 1990, we do not find it equitable  to  maintain  the  order  to  reinstate  the employees after 20 years. So far as the compensation in lieu of the reinstatement is concerned, we deem it proper to award Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand) to each of the workmen in addition to whatever amount has been paid to these workmen under Section 17(b) of the said Act by the appellant.

With  this  modification,  this  LPA  is  partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.”

4. As aforesaid,  this  Court  has entertained the present appeal

limited to the question of quantum of the lump sum amount to be

paid to the workmen concerned in lieu of reinstatement. It is not in

Page 4

4

dispute that the Management has paid wages to the workmen in

terms of the order passed on an application under Section 17(B) of

the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  during  the  pendency  of

proceedings  before  the  High Court.  The  question is:  whether  an

amount of  Rs.50,000/- determined by the Division Bench of  the

High  Court  to  be  paid  to  the  workmen  in  addition  to  whatever

amount has been paid to them under Section 17(B) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is adequate.

5. Considering the arguments of both sides, in our opinion, the

Division  Bench  was  right  in  observing  that,  in  the  facts  of  the

present case, an order of reinstatement must be eschewed, being

inequitable.  The workmen, however, must be compensated in lieu

of reinstatement. Applying the principle underlying the decisions of

this Court in Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd.  vs.  P.P. Chopra1

and the recent case of  Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd.   vs.

Union  of  India2,  in  our  considered  opinion,  interest  of  justice

would be met by enhancing the amount  of compensation in lieu of

1

(1969) 3 SCC 653 (3 Judges) 2

(2011) 12 SCC 449

Page 5

5

reinstatement/absorption  and  regularisation  quantified  at

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

For, the workmen have already received wages from October 2004

to January 2012 in terms of the order under Section 17(B) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without any work assigned to them.

The respondent paid minimum wages to the concerned workmen

during the relevant period as the workmen were not able to produce

any document in support of their last drawn wages.  

6. This  lump  sum  compensation  amount  of  Rs.1,50,000/-  to

each workmen would be in full and final settlement of all the claims

of the concerned workmen and substitute the order passed by the

Tribunal to that extent, without any further enquiry as to whether

the concerned workmen was gainfully employed during the relevant

period or not.

7. The respondent shall deposit the amount payable in terms of

this order to the workmen before the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, Dhanbad, within three months from today. Failing which,

shall be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 10% p.a. from

today  till  the  amount  is  deposited  or  paid  to  the  concerned

Page 6

6

workmen, whichever is earlier.  The Central Government Industrial

Tribunal,  Dhanbad,  shall  cause  to  disburse  the  amount  to  the

concerned workmen subject to verification.

8. The appeal succeeds in the above terms with no order as to

costs.

………………………….. …..CJI

(T.S.THAKUR)

…………………………….J. (A.M.KHANWILKAR)

………………………………….J.        (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD)

New Delhi 23rd September, 2016