2025 INSC 339
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE
SANJAY KUMAR, J. AND HON’BLE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.)
U.P. POWER CORPORATION
LTD
Petitioner
VERSUS
SATYA RAM
Respondent
Civil
Appeal No. OF 2025 (@ SLP(C) NO. 12310 OF 2023)-Decided on 05-03-2025
Labour Law,
Industrial Dispute
Uttar Pradesh
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 6H (1) – Industrial Dispute - Discontinuance
of service –
Age of petitioners - Grievance of the respondents was that despite the Award
dated 07.12.1995 passed by the Labour Court they were not taken back into
service but were paid ₹7,05,662/- each on
03.05.2016 - This payment was ostensibly for the period up to 31.12.2014 -
Their prayer in the application was that they should be paid for the period
01.01.2015 to 31.05.2018 in compliance with the Award dated 07.12.1995 - This
prayer was accepted by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, by order dated
05.04.2021, and she directed the appellant to pay each of them ₹6,53,302/- for that
period.
Assailing
the said order, the appellant approached the High Court by way of Writ and the
High Court did not agree with the appellant that the respondents were not
entitled to be paid salary for the period in question and dismissed the writ
petition - Two respondents were engaged
in service by the appellant in 1971 and 1973 - There is no material on record
to indicate what their ages were at that time - Presuming that they would
have been majors, i.e., at least 18 years old, when they were engaged in the
service of the appellant, a State instrumentality - If that be so, they would
attain the age of 60 years in 2013 and 2015 respectively –
In
any event, they would have rendered about 40 years’ service by 2013 - This
aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the High Court - Accepting their
claim would mean that they were aged about 8 years and 10 years respectively
when they entered the service of the appellant, which is quite unbelievable –
Held that the Deputy Labour Commissioner erred in directing payment of salary
to the respondents for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.05.2018 - Impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court and the order passed by the Deputy Labour
Commissioner liable to be set aside.
(Para
7 to 11)
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, J. :- Leave granted.
2.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 20.02.2023 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Writ C. No.
14303 of 2021. Thereby, the High Court confirmed the direction issued by the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda, to the appellant to pay
each of the two workers, viz., the Reason: respondents herein, a sum of ₹3,26,651/-,
aggregating to
₹6,53,302/-.
3.
By order dated 10.07.2023, while issuing notice in this matter, this Court
directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the officers of the
appellant, mentioned in the impugned judgment and order.
4.
It is an admitted fact that the two respondents entered the services of the
appellant, viz., the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., on 01.01.1971 and
26.02.1973 respectively. Their engagement was on daily wage basis. Their
services are stated to have been terminated on 19.09.1979 and 01.02.1979 respectively.
5.
Aggrieved by such termination from service, they raised an industrial dispute,
along with others, in ID No. 159 of 1990 before the Labour Court, Faizabad,
Uttar Pradesh. By Award dated 07.12.1995, the Labour Court held that, insofar
as the two respondents were concerned, their disengagement from service was
illegal and directed that they should be deemed to have continued in service
and they would, accordingly, be entitled to salary and other benefits.
6.
The respondents then moved an application under Section 6H (1) of the Uttar
Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same was taken on file as Case
No. 6(H)(1) R.C. Case No. 01 of 2014 by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi
Patan Division, Gonda.
7.
The grievance of the respondents, as set out in the said application was that,
despite the Award dated 07.12.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Faizabad, Uttar
Pradesh, they were not taken back into service but were paid ₹7,05,662/- each on
03.05.2016. This payment was ostensibly for the period up to 31.12.2014. Their
prayer in the application was that they should be paid for the period
01.01.2015 to 31.05.2018 in compliance with the Award dated 07.12.1995. This
prayer was accepted by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, by order dated
05.04.2021, and she directed the appellant to pay each of them ₹6,53,302/- for that
period. Assailing the said order, the appellant approached the High Court by
way of Writ – C No. 14303 of 2021. However, the High Court did not agree with
the appellant that the respondents were not entitled to be paid salary for the
period in question and dismissed the writ petition.
8.
First and foremost, we may note that the two respondents were engaged in
service by the appellant in 1971 and 1973. There is no material on record to indicate
what their ages were at that time. However, we shall presume that they
would have been majors, i.e., at least 18 years old, when they were engaged in
the service of the appellant, a State instrumentality. If that be so, they
would attain the age of 60 years in 2013 and 2015 respectively. In any event,
they would have rendered about 40 years’ service by 2013.
9.
This aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the High Court, which seems
to have blindly acted upon the claim of the respondents that they were 55 years
old in 2018 and were entitled to continue in service till 2023. Accepting their
claim would mean that they were aged about 8 years and 10 years respectively
when they entered the service of the appellant, which is quite unbelievable.
10.
We, therefore, hold that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi Patan Division,
Gonda, erred in directing payment of salary to the respondents for the period
01.01.2015 to 31.05.2018. This erroneous order ought not to have been confirmed
by the High Court, ignoring the aforesaid factual aspects.
11.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. In consequence, the impugned judgment and
order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, in Writ C. No. 14303 of 2021, and the order dated
07.12.1995 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi Patan Division,
Gonda, in Case No. 6(H)(1) R.C. Case No. 01 of 2014, are set aside.
Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------