Explore a detailed legal analysis of a case that involves the termination and subsequent reinstatement of a daily-wage worker. The court carefully examined the facts and circumstances of the case, considering evidence presented by both parties. This summary focuses on the court’s in-depth analysis of labor laws and principles, providing insights into the complexities of the legal system when dealing with employment disputes. Stay tuned to unravel the nuances of this intriguing legal case.
Facts
- The court examined the facts and circumstances (FAC) of the case.
- The FAC included evidence presented by both parties during the trial.
- The court took into account the witness testimonies and the documentary evidence.
- After considering the FAC, the court made its decision based on the available information.
- This part of the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the FAC and its relevance to the case.
- The appellants, Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital and two others, have filed an appeal against the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of Munna Prasad Saini with compensation.
- The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the Labour Court’s order for reinstatement and compensation.
- The appellants have appealed against this decision and the Supreme Court has listened to arguments from both parties.
- The Supreme Court is inclined to partially interfere with the impugned order.
Also Read: Land Auction Dispute Resolution
Arguments
- The first respondent impleaded the second respondent as respondent No.3 before the Labour Court, Lucknow.
- In paragraph 19 of the details of the dispute, the first respondent referred to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
Also Read: Analysis of Bail Conditions in Criminal Appeal No. INSC 48/2024
Analysis
- Termination of a daily-wage worker may be found illegal due to unfair labor practices or violation of last-come-first-go principle.
- If a daily-wage worker is terminated illegally, even after reinstatement, the management can choose to terminate the worker by paying retrenchment compensation.
- A daily-wage worker, even if reinstated, does not have the right to seek regularisation.
- In such cases, reinstatement may not serve any purpose, and the worker can be given monetary compensation instead.
- The grant of reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic for daily-wage workers if the termination is found to be illegal due to a procedural defect like violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- The appellant hospital required approval of the State Government for creation of regular posts and recruitment.
- The first respondent was not able to establish that proper procedure was followed for his selection and appointment.
- Letters from the Government of Uttar Pradesh granted permission for contractual appointments at the hospital.
- Reinstatement of the first respondent after a long gap was deemed impractical.
- Labour Court based its decision on attendance records and other documents.
- There was no evidence to show that ‘last to come, first to go’ rule was not followed by the appellant.
- Evidence from Right to Information Act and oral testimony of the first respondent were considered.
- Appointment of the first respondent was on a contractual basis and not to a regular post following proper selection process.
- The Labour Court’s direction for reinstatement was set aside in the present case.
- The compensation awarded was increased to a lump sum amount.
- The High Court had stayed reinstatement of the first respondent without passing an order under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- The first respondent filed an application under Section 17B to direct the appellant to pay the ‘last drawn wages.’
Also Read: Conviction Upheld for Murder and Concealment of Body
Decision
- Appellant liable to pay simple interest @ 0.5% per month if payment is not made within the specified period.
- Lump sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded to the first respondent.
- Direction for reinstatement set aside, replaced with direction for lump sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
- Payment of the compensation amount to be made within ten weeks from the date of this order.
Case Title: RAM MANOHAR LOHIA JOINT HOSPITAL Vs. MUNNA PRASAD SAINI (2021 INSC 509)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005810-005810 / 2021
