REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 5758 of 2012

M/s. Creative Garments Ltd. …Appellant

Versus

Kashiram Verma …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The Management has filed the present appeal

challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 10.06.2010 vide

which the order passed by the Single Bench dated

06.07.2006 was upheld. As a consequence, the award of

the Labour Court was held to be valid. The Labour Court

vide its award dated 28.10.2005 had directed

1 2023 INSC 243

reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service

from 08.12.1997 with full back wages.

2. A perusal of the paper-book shows that the

notice in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was

issued on 22.10.2010. As the respondent remained

unserved, fresh notice was directed to be issued on

13.12.2010. Dasti service was also permitted through

nearest civil court or trial court. On 24.10.2011, this Court

being not satisfied that service of the respondent had been

effected, directed for issuance of fresh notice subject to

deposit of ₹10,000/- to be paid to the respondent for his

travelling expenses as and when he enters appearance.

Dasti service was also permitted. Fresh notice was issued

on 24.07.2011 as the service was not complete. As per

Office Report dated 14.12.2011 in terms of the affidavit

filed by the appellant, the service on the respondent was

complete but he had not put in appearance till date.

Meaning thereby that he is not interested to defend the

present litigation.

3. A perusal of the award of the Labour Court

shows that the address of the respondent is through some

Union and he had not furnished his own address. A perusal

2

of the order passed by the Single Bench of High Court

shows that the respondent workman was represented,

hence he knew about the challenge to the award of the

Labour Court and also dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. The Order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal filed by the

Management against the order passed by the Single Bench

shows that the statement of the counsel for the

Management was recorded that the Management will

reinstate the workman and he shall be communicated

accordingly so as to enable him to report for duty.

Challenge was to the award of the Labour Court only to the

extent of award of back-wages. The appeal was admitted.

Thereafter, the Management had sent various

communications by Registered Post/Courier on 08.11.2006,

10.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 requesting the respondent to

report for duty. However, there was no response.

5. Further, when the matter was taken up by the

Division Bench of the High Court on 30.10.2007, the

statement of counsel for the workman was recorded that

he will report for duty on 05.11.2007 at 10:00 A.M. The

order reads as under:

3

“1. The learned Counsel appearing for

the Respondent No.1 states that the

Respondent No.1 will report for work at Amir

Industrial Estate, Sun Mill Compound, Lower

Parel, Mumbai. The learned Counsel for the

appellant states that if the respondent No.1

comes to Amir Industrial Estate, Sun Mill

Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai, at 10.00

a.m. on 5.11.2007 and meet Mr. S.K. Kedia, he

will be permitted to join immediately. The

statements are accepted. Put up on

19.11.2007.”

6. The Management sent another letter to the

workman on 26.12.2007 specifically mentioning that his

inaction to report for duty would amount to presumption

that he is no more interested to join the duty. Request was

also made to him to furnish his permanent address.

7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the

learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from his

client submitted that the respondent has not reported for

duty till date. Meaning thereby that he is no more

interested in joining duty and must have been gainfully

employed after leaving the job in question.

8. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, in our

opinion the award of the Labour Court granting back-

wages and continuity in service to the respondent

workman deserves to be set aside as he has not reported

4

for duty despite the statement made by his counsel in

Court on 30.10.2007. The present appeal cannot be kept

pending as the conduct of the respondent itself establishes

that he is no more interested in employment what to talk

of back-wages.

9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The

impugned order passed by the High Court and the award

of the Labour Court are set aside.

10. A sum of ₹10,000/- which was directed to be

deposited by the appellant before this Court vide order

dated 21.04.2011 be refunded back to the appellant.

11. Before parting with the order, this Court would

like to direct the authorities working under the various

labour laws to take some corrective steps.

12. It is a case in which permanent address of the

workman has not been mentioned. The address furnished

is care of Union. All efforts made to serve him at the given

address remained futile. Finally, appellant served the

respondent and filed affidavit. The service was at the

address of the Union, which may not be interested to

pursue the case on behalf of the workman.

5

13. Effective relief can be granted to a worker only if

the permanent address of the workman is furnished in the

pleadings.

14. Under section 15(2) and section 16 of the

Payment of Wages Act, 1936, if an application is filed by an

individual, there is a specific requirement of furnishing

permanent address of the applicant as per Form-A. If an

application is to be filed by a group of persons all the

applicants are required to furnish their addresses as per

Form-B annexed to Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules

1937.

15. Under Workman Compensation Act 1923, when

an application is filed by a workman for compensation, he

is required to furnish his residential address while filing an

application in Form–F (see Rule 20). In cases of

compensation for fatal accident a workman is required to

furnish his permanent address on Form-A (see Rule 6(1))

appended with Workman Compensation Rules ,1924.

16. Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for initiating

the proceedings under the Act, mentioning of addresses of

the parties to the disputes is required as contained in

6

Forms-I, J and K appended with Industrial Dispute (Central)

Rules, 1957.

17. Under section 20(2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948

if an applicant files an application for payment of wages,

he is required to mention his residential address as

contained in Form-VI framed under the aforesaid Act.

18. Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, when an

employee makes an application for payment of Gratuity,

he is required to mention full address as per Form-I (see

Rule 7(1)) appended with Payment of Gratuity (Central)

Rules 1972.

19. If any party approaches any authority for a

relief, the first thing required to be mentioned is his

complete address. Mentioning of address of the

representative is secondary as someone may like to

appear in person. Even in Civil Procedure Code, 1908,

Order VI Rule 14A provides that in every pleading, the

parties are required to furnish their complete addresses

and if there is any change it is also required to be

informed.

7

20. Supreme Court Rules, Form-32 of the Supreme

Court of India Handbook on Practice and Procedure and

Office Procedure mentions that in every petition, the

petitioner and respondent are required to furnish their

complete addresses.

21. To simplify labour laws and strengthening the

protection available to workers, including unorganised

workers in terms of statutory minimum wages, social

security and healthcare of the workers. The Parliament

has consolidated 29 labour laws under 4 category of

Codes, namely, Wage Code, Social Security Code,

Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code

and The Industrial Relations Code. Different existing

statutes, as consolidated in four Codes, are as under:

1.Code on Wages, 2019

(i)The Payment of Wages Act, 1936;

(ii)The Minimum Wages Act, 1948;

(iii)The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965;

(iv)The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.

8

2.Occupational Safety, Health and

Working Conditions Code, 2020

(i)The Factories Act, 1948;

(ii)The Mines Act, 1952;

(iii)The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and

Welfare) Act, 1986;

(iv)The Building and Other Construction

Workers (Regulation of Employment and

Conditions of Service) Act, 1996;

(v)The Plantations Labour Act, 1951;

(vi)The Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970;

(vii)The Inter-State Migrant Workmen

(Regulation of Employment and

Conditions of Service) Act, 1979;

(viii)The Working Journalist and other

Newspaper Employees (Conditions of

Service and Miscellaneous Provision) Act,

1955;

(ix)The Working Journalist (Fixation of Rates

of Wages) Act, 1958;

(x)The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961;

(xi)The Sales Promotion Employees

(Condition of Service) Act, 1976;

(xii)The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions

of Employment) Act, 1966;

9

(xiii)The Cine-Workers and Cinema Theatre

Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act,

1981.

3.Industrial Relation Code, 2020

(i)The Trade Unions Act, 1926;

(ii)The Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act, 1946;

(iii)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4.Code on Social Security, 2020

(i)The Employees’ Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952;

(ii)The Employees’ State Insurance Act,

1948;

(iii)The Employees’ Compensation Act,

1923;

(iv)The Employment Exchanges

(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies)

Act, 1959;

(v) The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961;

(vi)The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972;

(vii)The Cine-workers Welfare Fund Act,

1981;

(viii)The Building and Other Construction

Worker’s Welfare Cess Act 1996;

(ix)The Unorganised Workers Social Security

Act, 2008.

10

22. The aforesaid Codes are yet to be enforced.

With the enforcement of 4 Labour Codes, we are hopeful

that in future, when rules are framed, authorities will take

care that parties to the dispute furnish their permanent

addresses in the cases relating to labour law disputes.

23. In future all the cases to be filed and in all the

pending cases, the parties shall be required to furnish their

permanent address(es). Even if the representative of the

workman is appearing, he shall furnish permanent address

of the workman as well. Even in proceedings subsequent

to first stage, it shall be mandatory to provide permanent

address of the party for his service. Merely mentioning

through Labour Union or authorised representatives, who

are sometimes union leaders or legal practitioners, will not

be sufficient. Service of notice of workman will have to be

effected on the permanent address of the workman.

..…………………J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

.…………………J.

(RAJESH BINDAL)

New Delhi;

16.03.2023.

11