Page 1

     REPORTABLE     

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               CIVIL APPEAL NO.27 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)NO.23294 OF 2014)

THE MANAGER(FACTORY) MAHARASHTRA STATE        COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.        & ANR.       ... APPELLANTS  

                 VS.

    SURESH S/O DADARAO GADGE           ... RESPONDENT                                

        J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

Leave granted.

2. The  learned counsel  appearing for  both the  sides  

have requested for quick disposal of the appeal and we are  

also of the view that earlier disposal of the appeal would  

be in the interest of justice as well as the parties to  

the litigation.  In the circumstances, the appeal is heard  

and decided today.

3. The respondent had been appointed as a peon on daily  

wage basis on 1st July, 1994 and was discontinued from  

service from 4th March, 1996, without making any payment  

1

Page 2

of retrenchment compensation.

4. It is an admitted fact that the respondent had not  

been engaged to work by following the normal practice and  

thus he was engaged by way of “back door entry”.

5. The  respondent  had  challenged  his  termination  by  

approaching the Labour Court, Nanded (Maharashtra).  The  

Labour Court, by its Award dated 29th December, 2010, in  

Comp.ULP/No.2/1996, decided in favour of the respondent,  

whereby it was directed that he should be reinstated in  

service with continuity of service from 4th March, 1996,  

but without back wages.

6. The  said  Award  has  been  affirmed  by  the  learned  

Single Judge of the High Court by its judgment and order  

dated 27th March, 2014, passed in Writ Petition No.8809 of  

2012.

7. Being  aggrieved by  the judgment  delivered by  the  

High Court affirming the Award passed by the Labour Court,  

the appellant-employer has approached this Court.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we  

are of the view that the respondent ought not to have been  

reinstated in service as he was not in a regular service.  

In fact, no other person junior to the respondent had been  

continued at Parbhani unit of the appellant, which had  

2

Page 3

been closed down. In fact, there was no work at Parbhani  

unit,  as  the  said  unit  had  been  closed  down,  the  

respondent, who was working on daily wage basis, was not  

continued on daily wage basis, but it is an admitted fact  

that he was not given retrenchment compensation.

9. In  view  of  the  aforesaid  circumstances,  in  our  

opinion, it would be just and appropriate not to reinstate  

the respondent, especially, in view of the fact that (i)  

the respondent had hardly worked for a period of about a  

year and a half on daily wage basis; (ii) his appointment  

was irregular and; (iii) Parbhani unit of the appellant,  

where the respondent was employed, has now been closed  

down.

10. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, it would  

be just and proper to award a sum of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees  

two lakhs only) by way of compensation to the respondent,  

It is pertinent to note that he did not lead any evidence  

or file any affidavit before the Labour Court stating that  

he was unemployed during the period of litigation.  The  

aforestated amount of Rs.2 lakhs by way of compensation  

shall be paid to the respondent by the appellant within  

four weeks from today.

11. In  addition  to  Rs.2  lakhs,  the  amount  of  cost  

deposited  by  the  appellant  with  the  Registry  of  this  

3

Page 4

Court,  i.e.,  Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees  twenty  five  thousand  

only), is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent.

12. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is  

set aside and the appeal is allowed to the above extent  

with no order as to costs.   

      ..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE]

 .............J. [R. BANUMATHI]

New Delhi; 17th December, 2014.     

4