Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently set aside a high court order which blindly accepted claims of two daily wage employees about their age and for continuance of their services till 2023 without considering the fact that had it been so, they would have joined the organisation at the age of 8 years and 10 years respectively, which was quite unbelievable.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih allowed the appeal filed by UP Power Corporation Ltd and another and set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court of February 20, 2023, and the order of December 07, 1995, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda.

Examining the appeal, court noted that the two respondents Satya Ram and another were engaged in service by the appellant in 1971 and 1973 respectively. 

There is no material on record to indicate what their ages were at that time, the apex court pointed out. 

"However, we shall presume that they would have been majors, i.e., at least 18 years old, when they were engaged in the service of the appellant, a State instrumentality. If that be so, they would attain the age of 60 years in 2013 and 2015 respectively. In any event, they would have rendered about 40 years’ service by 2013," the bench said.

The court pointed out that this aspect of the matter was completely ignored by the high court, which seemed to have blindly acted upon the claim of the respondents that they were 55 years old in 2018 and were entitled to continue in service till 2023. 

"Accepting their claim would mean that they were aged about 8 years and 10 years respectively when they entered the service of the appellant, which is quite unbelievable," the bench added. 

The high court had confirmed the direction issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda, to the appellant to pay each of the two workers, viz, the respondents herein, a sum of Rs 3,26,651 aggregating to Rs 6,53,302.

The court noted it was an admitted fact that the two respondents entered the services of the appellant, viz, the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd, on January 01, 1971, and February 26, 197,3 respectively. Their engagement was ona  daily wage basis. Their services were stated to have been terminated on September 19, 1979, and February 01, 197,9 respectively.   

Aggrieved by such termination from service, they raised an industrial dispute, along with others, before the Labour Court, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh. By Award of December 07, 1995, the Labour Court held that, insofar as the two respondents were concerned, their disengagement from service was illegal and directed that they should be deemed to have continued in service and they would, accordingly, be entitled to salary and other benefits.

The respondents then moved an application under Section 6H (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda. 

The respondents raised the grievance that despite the award of December 07, 1995, passed by the Labour Court, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, they were not taken back into service but were paid Rs 7,05,662 each on May 03, 2016. This payment was ostensibly for the period up to December 31, 2014. Their prayer in the application was that they should be paid for the period January 01, 2015 to May 31, 2018 in compliance with the Award of December 07, 1995. 

This prayer was accepted by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, by order of April 05, 2021, and she directed the appellant to pay each of them Rs 6,53,302 for that period. Assailing the said order, the appellant approached the high court which did not agree with the appellant that the respondents were not entitled to be paid salary for the period in question and dismissed the writ petition.

After considering the facts of the matter, the bench said, "We, therefore, hold that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda, erred in directing payment of salary to the respondents for the period January 01, 2015 to May 31, 2018. This erroneous order ought not to have been confirmed by the High Court, ignoring the aforesaid factual aspects".

Case Title: UP Power Corporation Ltd & Anr Vs Satya Ram & Anr