Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 27 of 2015, Judgment Date: Dec 17, 2014

                                                                    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 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 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 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.