In a recent judgement by the Supreme Court of India, the case of Zilla Parishad v. Mr. [Appellant] saw a crucial decision regarding reinstatement and compensation. After over 30 years of being out of service, the appellant’s plea for reinstatement was declined by the High Court, citing entry violations and lack of public participation. Stay updated with the latest developments in this case.
Facts
- The appellant worked till 31.12.1987 and has been out of employment for more than thirty years.
- The High Court set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement in 2000.
- The Labour Court refused back wages citing interim orders for partial payment.
- The High Court in 2016 set aside the reinstatement order, awarded Rs.50,000 compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
- The High Court held that reinstatement on a permanent basis was not possible due to entry violations and lack of public participation.
- The High Court directed the Zilla Parishad to pay Rs.50,000 compensation to the appellant.
- The appellant was appointed as a peon in Zilla Parishad on a daily-wage basis in 1983.
- His services were discontinued in 1987 by an order from Zilla Parishad.
- The appellant filed a complaint under specific sections of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
- He alleged completion of 240 days each year and termination violating Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- The appellant requested reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.
- The Revision Application filed by Zilla Parishad was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal.
- Zilla Parishad then filed a writ petition before the High Court.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Arguments
- Mr. Sanjay Kharde, learned counsel for Zilla Parishad, pointed out that the appellant was out of service for more than 32 years.
- The appellant has been paid 75% of the last drawn wages for about 12 years without work, as per the order of the Labour Court dated 23.10.2000.
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Analysis
- The appellant has been unemployed for over thirty years
- Considering the circumstances and facts of the case, reinstatement has been declined
- The High Court’s decision of denying reinstatement is upheld
Also Read: Compromise Reached: Reddy Satyanarayana vs Narapureddy Sanyasi Rao
Decision
- The impugned order is modified as follows
- Balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the appellant by Zilla Parishad within eight weeks
- An additional compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded to the appellant
- Appeal is partly allowed with modifications
Case Title: DHARAMRAJ NIVRUTTI KASTURE Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANR.
Case Number: C.A. No.-005978-005978 / 2019
