Supreme Court: Spouse Cannot Withdraw Consent for Mutual Divorce After Settlement Agreement  ||  Supreme Court Suspends PC Act Sentence of Former Minister Anosh Ekka, Flags Overlapping CBI Cases  ||  Supreme Court: Magistrate’s Probe Order Can’t be Quashed on Accused’s Defence  ||  Delhi High Court: No Adverse Inference if Handwriting Sample Refused Without Section 73 Disclosure  ||  J&K&L HC: Bank Officials Not Entitled to Section 197 CrPC Protection Despite Public Servant Status  ||  Kar HC Orders CBI Probe into 53-Acre Land Acquisition, Citing Alleged Monumental Fraud & Conspiracy  ||  Supreme Court Grants Probation to Convicts; Rules Fine-Only Cases Also Eligible  ||  SC Disposes Plea on Allied Health Course Moratorium After NCAHP Issues 2026–27 Guideline  ||  Supreme Court Grants Promotion Relief to Employee Denied Relaxation, Calling it Discrimination  ||  Patna HC: Tender Lapses if Not Extended on Time & Delay Cannot be Cured by Repeated Representations    

State Bank of India Vs. Rajkumar Baban Mahabade - (High Court of Bombay) (06 Jun 2022)

Award granting reinstatement should not be passed in the cases of daily rated employees

MANU/MH/1796/2022

Labour and Industrial

Present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenges the award passed by the Labour Court. The learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned award by contending that the Labour Court has committed serious error in partly allowing the reference and directing reinstatement of the respondent. It is ignored that he was temporary employee and had no right to continue in service.

In the facts of the present case, since it is found that the Labour Court has erred in not considering the relevant factors i.e. nature of service, mode and manner of recruitment, length of service and that the respondent was working as temporary daily wager employee, the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the settled legal position that even if order of retrenchment is passed in violation of Section 25-F of the said Act, but the award granting reinstatement should not be passed in the cases of daily rated employees.

Though the respondent has worked for almost 10 years as casual temporary daily wager, he could not be absorbed because of non availability of posts in the year 1997-98. The Labour Court has committed an error in granting the respondent the relief of reinstatement on part time/temporary post. Considering the facts of the case, the Labour Court ought to have granted adequate compensation to the respondent.

The labour court was not justified in granting the respondent reinstatement with continuity of service. The labour court ought to have awarded adequate compensation to the respondent instead of granting reinstatement.

While granting reinstatement and continuity of service and 60% backwages, to the respondent, the labour court has failed to consider relevant factors like nature of service rendered by the respondent, mode and manner of recruitment, so also the admitted position on record that the services of the respondent were engaged purely on casual and temporary basis on daily wages. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of reinstatement with continuity of service and 60% back wages, passed by the labour court is unsustainable, instead, award of monetary compensation would be appropriate in the facts of the present case. In view of the fact that the respondent is not in service since last more than 23 years and the settled legal position that daily rated employee has no right to continue in service, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned award passed by the labour court directing reinstatement of service as part time employee, with continuity of service and 60% back wages cannot be sustained.

Tags : REINSTATEMENT   DIRECTION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved