Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  855         OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.22606 of 2007)

Rajkumar S/o Rohitlal Mishra                                       …. Appellant(s)

Versus

Jalagaon Municipal Corporation                                ….Respondent(s)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 861-864          OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(Civil)Nos. 23708-23711 of 2007)

J U D G M E N T

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants have preferred these appeals against the  

common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the  

Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Letters Patent Appeals arising  

out of Writ Petitions whereby the order passed by the Learned Single  

Judge quashing the award passed by the Labour Court,  Jalagaon,  

has been affirmed.

1

Page 2

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.  All the  

appellants were employed with the Respondent Corporation on daily  

wages or on temporary basis.  One of the appellant was engaged as  

daily coolie in Construction Department of the Corporation, some time  

in 1989 and his services were terminated after two years in 1991.  

Second  appellant  was  appointed  as  casual  labour  in  Building  

Department of the Corporation in March 1980 and his services were  

terminated in 1992.  The 3rd appellant was appointed as a labourer in  

Water Supply Department of Respondent Corporation, some time in  

July  1996  and  was  terminated  in  May,  1997.   Similarly,  the  4 th  

appellant was engaged as casual labourer in Building Department of  

the Respondent in January 1989 and was terminated in December,  

1991.  The 5th appellant was appointed as supervisor in March 1989  

and his services were terminated in 1991.  Four of  the appellants  

approached  the  Labour  Commissioner  (Conciliation  officer)  some  

time in 2001 and the 5th appellant approached the conciliation officer  

some time in 2000.   When the conciliation failed the dispute  was  

referred  to  Labour  Court  for  adjudication  as  to  whether  the  

termination of  services was illegal.   The  Labour  Court  passed an  

award holding the termination as illegal and directed reinstatement of  

the  appellants.   Aggrieved  by  the  said  order  the  Respondent-

2

Page 3

Corporation  moved  the  High  Court  by  filing  writ  petitions.   The  

learned  Single  Judge,  after  hearing  the  parties,  allowed  the  writ  

petitions  and  quashed  the  award  passed  by  the  Labour  Court.  

However,  the  Respondent  –  Corporation  was  directed  to  pay  

Rs.10,000/-  each to the appellants by way of  compensation.   The  

learned  Single  Judge  noticed  that  out  of  five,  four  appellants  

approached the Labour Commissioner for conciliation after 8 to 10  

years from the date of termination of service.  Only the 5 th appellant  

approached  the  Labour  Commissioner  after  three  years  and  ten  

months from the date of termination of service.  The learned Single  

Judge, following the earlier decisions of this Court held that there had  

been  gross  and  inordinate  delay  in  approaching  the  Labour  

Commissioner  and,  therefore,  the  dispute  could  not  have  been  

referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.   

4. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the Labour  

Court  had committed serious error  of  law in passing the award of  

reinstatement.  Accordingly, the award was quashed with a direction  

to  the  Respondent  Corporation  to  pay  Rs.10,000/-   each  to  the  

appellants  by  way  of  compensation.   All  the  five  appellants  

dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single  

Judge filed Letters Patent Appeals which were numbered as 140-144  

3

Page 4

of 2007.  The Division Bench noticed the undisputed facts that all the  

appellants were temporarily employed on daily wages or temporary  

basis, and that their services were terminated after they worked for  

five  years.  It  was  further  noticed  that  delay  in  approaching  the  

conciliation officer  was totally unexplained and there is nothing on  

record to infer that the appellants were continuously approaching the  

Corporation for their reinstatement in service.  The Division Bench,  

therefore, while dismissing the appeals observed:

“We also agree with the learned Single Judge  that there is another stumbling block in the path of  workers/appellants. Admittedly, they were temporary  workers doing the job on daily wages, as and when  work was available. It is not their case that they were  posted  on  any  regular  vacant  posts,  nor  it  is  their  case  that  they  had  gone  through  due  process  of  selection.  In  the  light  of  ratio  laid  down  by  the  Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court  in  the matter  of  Secretary,  State of  Karnataka and  others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 AIR  SCW 1991, the learned Single Judge was justified in  holding that  no remedy is  available  to  the workers  since they were not the workers appointed on regular  vacant posts by due process of selection.”

5.         We have heard Mr. Anish R. Shah and Shivaji M. Jadhav,  

learned counsel for the appearing parties.  Mr. Shah, counsel  

for the appellant contended that the courts below have erred in  

holding  that  the  Labour  Court  ought  not  to  have  passed an  

4

Page 5

award  of  reinstatement  in  a  case  where  the  appellants  

approached for conciliation about 8-10 years of the termination.  

It is submitted that while making the aforesaid observation the  

courts  below  failed  to  appreciate  that  the  appellants  were  

continuously  making  representation  to  the  Respondent-

Corporation and only on the basis of the assurance given by  

the Respondent Corporation the appellant had not taken any  

steps to enforce their right through the process of the court.

6.         In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the  

learned Single  Judge and Division Bench in  appeal  that  the  

appellants were temporarily appointed on daily wages as and  

when work was available and they were not posted on regular  

basis against sanctioned post, we do not find any reason and  

justification  to  interfere  with  the  orders  passed  by  the  two  

courts.   However,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  direction  for  

payment  of  Rs.10,000/-  each  to  the  appellants   will  not  

compensate  the  appellants.   Hence,  the  appellants  who  

approached for the conciliation after 8 to 10 years from the date  

of  termination  are  entitled  to  a  sum  of  Rs.50,000/-  each  

whereas one of the appellants namely Rajkumar Rohitlal who  

5

Page 6

has approached the Conciliation Officer within 2 to 3 years shall  

be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  

7.       The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single  

Judge  is  modified  to  that  extent.   These  appeals  are,  

accordingly disposed of.

……………………J. (T.S. THAKUR)

……………………J. (M.Y. EQBAL)

New Delhi February 01, 2013

6