Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs 4858-4859 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 35984-35985 OF 2015]

GHANSHYAM SUKHDEO GAIKWAD AND ORS            Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

BAJAJ AUTO LTD. & ORS.                       Respondent(s) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4860-4862 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 35986-35988 OF 2015]

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.  2. The  appeals  have  a  chequered  history.   The  appellants  started  the  litigation  way  back  in  the  year 1991 by approaching initially the Labour Court  and thereafter, the Industrial Court at Pune.  The  Labour  Court  dismissed  their  complaint.   The  Industrial Court remanded the matter to the Labour  Court, which was pursued by the Management before the  High Court.  The High Court set aside the orders of  the Labour Court and the Industrial Court by consent,  and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court by  order dated 09.04.1996.  The Labour Court, by order  dated  12.12.1997,  dismissed  the  complaint.   The  appellants pursued the matter before the Industrial  Tribunal.   The  Industrial  Tribunal  allowed  the

Page 2

2

complaint and directed reinstatement of the workmen,  however,  without  backwages,  by  its  order  dated  22.01.1998.   3. Both sides, feeling aggrieved, approached  the  High Court of judicature of Bombay, which has led to  the impugned Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2015, by  which the High Court has dismissed the writ petition  filed by the appellants and allowed the writ petition  filed  by  the  Management,  holding  that  the  retrenchment was in order.   4. Thus aggrieved, the workmen are before this Court  in these appeals.   5. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides  extensively.  During the course of hearing, it was  noticed by this Court that in the year 2007, one of  the appellants (according to the learned counsel for  the  Management,  all  the  appellants)  was  offered  Voluntary  Retirement  (VRS),  by  which  Scheme,  the  appellant  would  be  receiving  an  amount  of  Rs.20,40,981/-,  inclusive  of  Provident  Fund  and  Gratuity.  It appears that the workman was not happy  with  the offer.   According  to Mr.  Sanjay Singhvi,  learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,  some of them were not offered the said Scheme.   6. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that all  the appellants have been getting regular wages ever  since  2002,  as  applicable  to  permanent  workers.

Page 3

3

According to Mr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel, the  wages  of  regular  workers  did  not  actually  include  certain allowances.  It is also not in dispute that  the Management has not been extracting any work from  the appellants since April, 2003, though according to  the appellants, they have been reporting everyday for  work and they have been sitting in the premises of  the Company only.   7. Having  regard  to  the  background  of  the  litigation, having regard to the fact that thousands  of  employees  have  been  discharged  on  VRS  by  the  Management and having regard to the fact that out of  the 65 people who pursued the litigation, 59 people  have  already gone  on VRS  or otherwise,  and having  regard to the age factor of the appellants, we are of  the  view  that  the  interest  of  justice  would  be  advanced if the appellants are paid a lump sum amount  towards settlement of all their dues.  Though neither  the  Management nor  the workmen  could agree  on the  offers made from either side, having regard to all  the aspects which we have referred to above, we feel  that to do complete justice between the parties, it  will be appropriate that the appellants are given an  amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs) each.  The  said  amount  of  Rs.  10  Lakhs  will  be  paid  to  the  appellants within six weeks from today and in case of  default in making the payment, the amount shall carry

Page 4

4

interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the  award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 8. We make it clear that the said amount of Rs. 10  Lakhs will not include the claim of the workmen for  Gratuity and Provident Fund.  We also clarify that  the Gratuity will be calculated on the basis of the  wages  drawn  by  the  workmen  as  of  now  and  with  continuous service till today.   9. In view of the above observations and directions,  the  appeals  are  disposed  of  with  no  order  as  to  costs.   10. It is made clear that we have invoked our special  jurisdiction  under  Article  142  of  the  Constitution  and, therefore, this Judgment will not be treated as  a precedent.       

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; May 05, 2016.