Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement Of Watchman Who Was Illegally Dismissed 20 Years Ago

The Supreme Court recently granted relief to a watchman who was wrongfully terminated from service in 2002, by ordering his reinstatement within 6 weeks. The Court further directed that the man should be paid backwages for the period from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2022 .

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat passed the judgment in a petition filed by one Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja, who was appointed in 1992 as a watchman by the Kutch district panchayat. He was terminated from the services on 30.12.2002 for no cause, without notice and without following the procedure prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In 2003, he challenged the retrenchment before the Bhuj Labour Court, which in 2010 ordered for Jadeja's reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The management approached the Gujarat High Court against the Labour Court order. A single judge of the High Court did not interfere with the Labour Court order.  In 2021, a divison bench of the High Court set aside the Labour Court direction and instead awarded lumpsum compensation of ₹ 1 lakh. Challenging the High Court direction, Jadeja approached the Supreme Court.

HC intervention unwarranted

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's interference in the facts of the case were unwarranted. It noticed that the appellant had applied under the RTI Act, eliciting relevant documents to substantiate his claim that employees who were junior to him were retained in service. The management was unable to refute the material on record.

"In the circumstances, given the fact that the direction of the Labour Court was only to reinstate but not pay backwages, the Division Bench's substitution of that relief is not based on any known principle", the Supreme Court observed.

The direction to substitute the relief of reinstatement with one for lumpsum payment was not warranted in the circumstances of this case.

The Court also criticised the management for dragging the matter to the Court and said that if the Labour Court's decision was accepted by it, the appellant "would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years."

"In such circumstances, the denial of backwages, has resulted in punishing him, although the delay is attributable to the judicial process. However, the respondent management cannot be absolved of the primary responsibility in its litigative proclivity," the bench observed in its order. It added that the workmen could have not been made to suffer "on account of the management's obdurate attempt to have the relief set aside".

"In the present case, this court finds no perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the Labour Court and the single judge in directing the appellant's reinstatement. Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, the denial of backwages, has resulted in punishing him, although the delay is attributable to the judicial process. However, the respondent management cannot be absolved of the primary responsibility in its litigative proclivity. In these circumstances, the appellant shall be entitled to backwages for a period of two years immediately preceding, i.e., from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022", the Court observed.

 The direction of the Labour Court for continuity of service is also restored.

The appellant was represented by Mehmood Umar Faruqui, Advocate-on-Record.

Case Title : Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja versus Kuttch District Panchayat 

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 797

Headnotes

Labour Law - Supreme Court directs reinstatement of watchman who was retrenced 20 years ago- Labour Court had directed him to be reinstated in 2010- High Court set aside the direction for reinstatement and modified it as a direction for lumpsum paymnet of 1 lakh compensation- Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was unwarranted in the facts of the case-Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, the denial of backwages, has resulted in punishing him - So apart from reinstatement, the SC directs that the workman be paid backwages of from 2020 to 2022.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment