REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7395 OF 2009

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30550/2008)

Ashok Kumar Sharma …Appellant

Versus

Oberoi Flight Services …Respondent

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. In this appeal by special leave, the workman has

challenged the judgment and order passed by the Division

Bench of Delhi High Court on March 18, 2008 whereby

monetary compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been ordered to be

paid by the Management to him in lieu of reinstatement and

back wages.

3. The Appellant (for short “workman”) was employed

by Oberoi Flight Services-Respondent (for short “Management”)

as a loader on March 10, 1980. Allegedly on August 31, 1986

while returning from duty, the workman was found carrying 30

KLM soup spoons illegally in his shoe. The workman is said to

have admitted his guilt in writing on August 31, 1986 itself

and then again on the next day i.e. September 1, 1986. The

Management acting on the said admission of guilt by the

workman, vide order dated September 3, 1986 dismissed him

from service. Having been unsuccessful in his representation

and legal notice to the Management, the workman raised

industrial dispute before the appropriate Government which

was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Delhi on June

19, 1987.

4. The workman in his statement of claim before the

Labour Court set out that being a union leader, the

Management hatched a conspiracy against him for his removal

and obtained confession letters under threat and coercion. He

also set up the plea that without holding any inquiry and in

breach of the principles of the natural justice, the order of

dismissal was passed by the Management. In the written

statement, the Management, on the other hand, narrated the

circumstances in which the workman had stolen 30 KLM soup

2

spoons by carrying them in his shoe. The parties led evidence

in support of their respective stand. The Labour Court, after

hearing the parties, vide his award dated January 31, 1996 held

that order of dismissal passed by the Management was

contrary to law but at the same time it also held that the

dismissal of the workman from the service of the Management

was not unjustified. The Labour Court, however, awarded full

back wages to the workman from the date of his dismissal until

the date of award.

5. The workman challenged the award of the Labour

Court by filing Writ Petition which was heard by the Single

Judge. The Single Judge held that workman has failed to make

out any ground for interference with the impugned award and,

consequently, dismissed the Writ Petition on July 30, 2007.

6. Not satisfied with the order of the Single Judge, the

workman preferred Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench

held that it was difficult to believe the contention of the

Management that 30 KLM soup spoons could be put in a shoe

and that workman walked with the said spoons in his shoe from

the work area to the security check area. The Division Bench

3

also noticed that Management having not conducted any

enquiry, the dismissal of workman without issuing him charge-

sheet or a show cause notice was unsustainable. However, the

Division Bench vide his judgment dated March 18, 2008 did not

deem it proper to order reinstatement of the workman and

instead directed the Management to pay him Rs.60,000/- in full

and final settlement of the claim. It is this part of the order

which is under challenge in this appeal.

7. This Court in U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd.

V. Uday Narain Pandey

1

held thus:

“41. The Industrial Courts while adjudicating on

disputes between the Management and the workman,

therefore, must take such decisions which would be in

consonance with the purpose the law seeks to

achieve. When justice is the buzzword in the matter of

adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, it

would be wholly improper on the part of the superior

courts to make them apply the cold letter of the

statutes to act mechanically. Rendition of justice

would bring within its purview giving a person what is

due to him and not what can be given to him in law.

42. A person is not entitled to get something only

because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is

applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose

much of their significance.

45. The Court, therefore, emphasised that while

granting relief, application of mind on the part of the

Industrial Court is imperative. Payment of full back

wages, therefore, cannot be the natural

consequence.”

1

JT2005(10)SC344

4

8. In the case of Sita Ram V. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers

Training Institute

2

this Court considered the matter thus:

“21. The question, which, however, falls for our

consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was

justified in awarding reinstatement of the appellants in

service.

22. Keeping in view the period during which the

services were rendered by the respondent (sic

appellants); the fact that the respondent had stopped

its operation of bee farming, and the services of the

appellants were terminated in December 1996, we

are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the

appellants could have been directed to be reinstated

in service.

23. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a

discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is

required to be exercised judiciously. Relevant factors

therefor were required to be taken into consideration;

the nature of appointment, the period of appointment,

the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the

court for determination of such an issue.

24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined

that payment of adequate amount of compensation in

place of a direction to be reinstated in service in

cases of this nature would subserve the ends of

justice. (See Jaipur Development Authority v.

Ramsahai [(2006) 11 SCC 684], M.P. Admn. v.

Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748] and Uttaranchal Forest

Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC

353])

25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum

of Rs. 1,00,000 to each of the appellants, would meet

the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the

aforementioned extent. In the facts and

circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as

to costs.”

9. The afore-referred two decisions of this Court and

few more decisions were considered by us in the case of Jagbir

2

JT 2008 (3)SC622

5

Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board

3

albeit in

the context of retrenchment of a daily wager in violation of

section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more

than 240 days in a year and we observed thus:

“7.It is true that earlier view of this Court

articulated in many decisions reflected the legal

position that if the termination of an employee was

found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full

back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in

recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position

and in long line of cases, this Court has consistently

taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with

back wages is not automatic and may be wholly

inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the

termination of an employee is in contravention to the

prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of

reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of

justice.”

10. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions of this

Court wherein award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement

and back wages has been held to be adequate and in the

interest of justice.

11. In light of the aforesaid legal position, the view of

the High Court that monetary compensation in lieu of

reinstatement of the workman would be proper cannot be said

to be unjustified. However, we find that the compensation in

the sum of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Division Bench is

3

JT 2009(9)SCC396

6

grossly inadequate. Regard being had to all relevant facts and

circumstances, including the nature of employment and the fact

that he was a confirmed employee, in our considered view

compensation of Rs.2 lacs to the appellant by the Respondent

shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such

payment should be made, after deducting the amount already

paid, within six weeks from today failing which the same shall

carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on unpaid

amount.

12. Appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent with

no order as to costs.

…………………

…J

(Tarun Chatterjee)

…….…………

…..J

(R. M. Lodha)

New Delhi

November 6, 2009.

7