Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 24-02-2016 in case of petitioner name M/S Haryana Suraj Maltings Ltd vs Narender Kumar
| |

Supreme Court Upholds Reinstatement of Worker in Haryana Suraj Maltings Case

Updated on

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of M/S Haryana Suraj Maltings Ltd. vs. Narender Kumar, ruled in favor of a workman who had been terminated unlawfully. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reinstate the worker with 50% back wages, emphasizing that the termination was illegal since the worker had completed 240 days of work in a year.

The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to labor laws and protecting the rights of employees against unfair termination. The judgment sets a precedent for similar cases involving wrongful termination and reinstatement rights.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when Narender Kumar, the respondent, was terminated from his employment at Haryana Suraj Maltings Ltd.. The workman approached the Labor Court, claiming that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year, which entitled him to protection under labor laws.

The Labor Court initially ruled in favor of the workman, but the employer challenged this decision before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court, after reviewing the materials, upheld the Labor Court’s decision and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the employer appealed to the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s (Haryana Suraj Maltings Ltd.) Arguments

  • The company argued that the High Court should have remanded the case to the Labor Court instead of directly ordering reinstatement.
  • They contended that the evidence regarding the completion of 240 days of work was not adequately reviewed.
  • The employer maintained that the termination was justified and did not violate labor laws.

Respondent’s (Narender Kumar) Arguments

  • The workman argued that he had worked for 240 days in a year, making the termination unlawful under labor laws.
  • He emphasized that the Labor Court had already found the termination to be illegal, and the High Court correctly upheld this decision.
  • The reinstatement order was necessary to ensure justice and prevent unfair labor practices.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman, upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the employer’s appeal.

1. No Need to Remand the Case to the Labor Court

The Court rejected the employer’s argument that the case should have been sent back to the Labor Court for reconsideration:

“Though the above submission is ex-facie attractive, we do not think that in the facts of the present case, the matter should be remanded to the Labor Court.”

2. Worker Had Completed 240 Days of Work

The Court confirmed that the workman had indeed worked for 240 days in a year, meeting the threshold required under labor laws for protection against termination.

3. Reinstatement with 50% Back Wages Upheld

The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision to reinstate the worker with 50% back wages, stating:

“What has been ordered by the High Court is only reinstatement with 50% back wages, having found that the termination of the respondent-workman was illegal. We find no illegality in the approach made by the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court issued the following directives:

  • The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision.
  • The respondent (workman) would be reinstated in his job.
  • The workman was entitled to 50% back wages from the date of termination.
  • No costs were imposed on either party.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that workers who complete 240 days in a year cannot be terminated arbitrarily. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that labor laws protecting employees against unfair dismissal are strictly enforced.

Key Takeaways:

  • Workers completing 240 days in a year are entitled to protection against termination.
  • Reinstatement with back wages is a common remedy in wrongful termination cases.
  • Courts should avoid unnecessary delays by remanding cases when the facts are clear.
  • Employers must ensure compliance with labor laws before terminating employees.

This ruling provides a strong precedent for similar labor disputes, ensuring that workers’ rights are upheld in accordance with legal protections.

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

Download Judgment: MS Haryana Suraj Ma vs Narender Kumar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-02-2016-1741852827310.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2016
See all petitions in 2016 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

Similar Posts