Daily Wage Worker’s Right to Reinstatement: Supreme Court Ruling in State of Uttarakhand vs. Raj Kumar

The case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Raj Kumar concerns the issue of the reinstatement of a daily wage worker who was allegedly terminated from service by the State without following due procedure. The respondent, Raj Kumar, had worked as a Beldar in the State’s Public Works Department (PWD) in Haridwar for a period of one year. He contended that his services were illegally terminated without following the required procedure under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After almost 25 years, the worker approached the Labour Court and filed a dispute challenging his termination.

The Labour Court ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding him monetary compensation of Rs.30,000 in lieu of reinstatement. However, the respondent appealed the decision, seeking reinstatement along with back wages, and the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the merits of the case, examining whether reinstatement or compensation was the appropriate remedy given the circumstances of the worker’s long absence and the nature of his employment.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Raj Kumar, worked as a daily wage laborer in the State’s PWD Department from June 1986 to May 1987. His services were allegedly terminated in 1987 without following the procedures outlined in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates notice and payment of retrenchment compensation for workers with more than one year of service. Raj Kumar contended that his termination was illegal, as it violated the provisions of the Act.

After a prolonged delay, in 2014, the respondent filed a petition in the Labour Court, Haridwar, challenging his termination. The Labour Court awarded him compensation of Rs.30,000 for the wrongful termination, rejecting his plea for reinstatement and back wages. Dissatisfied with this decision, Raj Kumar filed a writ petition in the High Court, which directed the State to reinstate him without awarding back wages. The State filed a review application, but the High Court’s decision was upheld, leading to the filing of the present appeal by the State in the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Uttarakhand)

The appellant, the State of Uttarakhand, presented the following arguments:

• The respondent had worked as a daily wager for a short duration of about one year and did not have a right to be reinstated after such a long period.
• Compensation is the appropriate remedy when the termination of a daily wage worker occurs due to procedural defects, and reinstatement is not warranted in such cases.
• The High Court’s order to reinstate the worker after 25 years was unreasonable and unfair, considering the long passage of time and the nature of the employment.

Arguments by the Respondent (Raj Kumar)

The respondent, Raj Kumar, argued that:

• His termination was illegal as it violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates retrenchment compensation and notice for workers with more than one year of service.
• The delay in filing the dispute should not prevent him from seeking reinstatement and the back wages that he rightfully earned during his tenure.
• The Labour Court’s award of compensation was insufficient and did not adequately address the injustice of his wrongful termination.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the arguments made by both the appellant and the respondent and examined the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court noted that in cases of illegal termination of a daily wage worker, the typical remedy is not automatic reinstatement with back wages, but monetary compensation, as reinstating a worker in such circumstances may not serve any meaningful purpose.

The Court observed:

“Reinstatement with full back wages is not the automatic remedy when a daily wage worker’s termination is found to be illegal due to procedural defects. The appropriate remedy in such cases is compensation, which adequately meets the ends of justice.”

The Court further clarified:

“The delay in challenging the termination and the nature of the worker’s employment as a daily wage laborer make reinstatement an impractical remedy. Monetary compensation is a more appropriate remedy in such cases.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, the State of Uttarakhand, and modified the High Court’s order. The Court held:

“Given the long delay in filing the petition and the nature of the respondent’s employment as a daily wage worker, the remedy of reinstatement is not appropriate. The compensation of Rs.30,000 awarded by the Labour Court is insufficient, and it should be enhanced to Rs.1,00,000 (one lakh) to meet the ends of justice.”

The Court concluded that the respondent would receive a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000 instead of reinstatement and back wages. The appellant was directed to make the payment within three months from the date of the receipt of the judgment.

Conclusion

This ruling in the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Raj Kumar underscores the Supreme Court’s position on the appropriate remedy for daily wage workers who have been illegally terminated due to procedural defects. The judgment makes it clear that reinstatement is not an automatic remedy in such cases, particularly when there is a long delay in challenging the termination. Instead, monetary compensation is the more suitable solution, with the amount determined by the Court to adequately compensate for the wrongfully terminated worker’s distress.

Petitioner Name: State of Uttarakhand.
Respondent Name: Raj Kumar.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 07-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Uttarakhand vs Raj Kumar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category