Management of Barara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. vs Workman Pratap Singh Case Summary 2019 SC

Management of Barara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. vs Workman Pratap Singh Case Summary 2019 SC

Management of Barara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. vs Workman Pratap Singh case dealt with the grounds for the reference to Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It also deals with the reinstatement of the workman into service.

BENCH: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Indu Malhotra

MANAGEMENT OF BARARA COOPERATIVE MARKETING-CUM-PROCESSING SOCIETY JUDGEMENT DATE: January 2nd, 2019

MANAGEMENT OF BARARA COOPERATIVE MARKETING-CUM-PROCESSING SOCIETY CASE CITATION: AIR 2019 SC 228

MANAGEMENT OF BARARA COOPERATIVE MARKETING-CUM-PROCESSING SOCIETY CASE FACTS:

  • The appellant is a cooperative marketing society and the workman Pratap Singh is the respondent who was a peon under the appellant. On 1st August 1985, the appellant terminated the respondent’s services.
  • Then the respondent referred the case to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that termination is unjustified and awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 12,500 on 3rd February 1988.
  • Then both the parties filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the award passed by the Labour Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the respondent accepted the compensation directed by the Labour Court.
  • Then the respondent filed a representation to the appellant requesting re-employment of services as the appellant had regularized the services of two of his peons under Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The appellant did not accept his request. Hence, the case was referred to the Labour Court.
  • Then the Labour Court held that it will not entitle the respondent to any benefits of re-employment under Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
  • Then a writ petition was filed in the High Court by the respondent. The single judge set aside the order of the Labour Court and directed for re-employment of the respondent.
  • Then the appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the single bench.
  • Then a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court by the appellant.

ISSUES:

  • Whether the workman is entitled to re-employment or not under Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
  • What are the grounds for the reference to Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?

RATIO DECEDENDI:

  • Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Indu Malhotra: The Bench stated that there is no case of re-employment under Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as the respondent accepted the compensation awarded by the court in place of reinstatement of his services.
  • The Bench further stated that the aim behind Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act is to offer re-employment to a retrenched employee over the other persons against the vacancy in the organization.
  • Section 25 (H) must be implemented according to the procedure in Rule 78 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957. It states the essential ground to be proved by the respondent to claim re-employment under Section 25 (H) are; i) he must be a retrenched employee ii) his ex-employer is filling the vacancies in their setup.
  • The Bench further states that the respondent cannot invoke Section 25 (H) and demand re-employment by referring to the regularization of another employee who was already in employment. It does not amount to filling a vacancy by the employer.
  • The Bench also states that there is a difference between employment and regularization of services. Employment means fresh employment to fill the vacancies, whereas regularization of services means regularizing the services of the employees who are already in service.

DECISION:

 The appeal was allowed by the court and it also set aside the order of the High Court as well as restored the order of the Labour Court and stated that Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 will not be applied in this case. The court further stated that it will not entitle the respondent to re-employment under the petitioner.

CONCLUSION:

The conclusion that we can draw from this case is that the respondent was not entitled to re-employment under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It further states that the regularization of employees who are already in service does not results in filing vacancies under Section 25 (H) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

Found Management of Barara Corporation Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. vs Workman Pratap Singh Case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from labour law that will help you in your preparation here >>> LABOUR LAW

Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT

Share on print
Print PDF
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Ankit Kumar

Ankit Kumar

See Legal News, Judgements, Jobs Monthwise

Recent Posts

About Us

Law Planet is specially created for law enthusiasts. We provide courses for various law exams. We also write about law to increase legal awareness amongst common citizens.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG!