Summary
A Labour Court awarded a dismissed garment worker reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages, and the Bombay High Court upheld the award. In the employer's appeal, where the worker never appeared despite repeated notices at his union's address, the record showed that the employer had agreed to reinstate him, had written thrice asking him to report, and his counsel had undertaken that he would join on a fixed date in November 2007, yet he never did. The Supreme Court set aside the award, holding that his conduct showed he was no longer interested in employment, let alone back wages, and directed that in all labour matters the worker's permanent address must be furnished and notices served there, an address care of a union being insufficient.
Issues
- Whether an award of reinstatement with back wages can be sustained where the workman, despite the employer's offer and his counsel's undertaking before the High Court, never reported for duty and did not appear to defend the award.
- What particulars of a workman's address must be furnished in proceedings under the labour laws to enable effective service and relief.
Provisions considered
- Order VI Rule 14A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Cited as reflecting the general requirement that every pleading state the party's complete address and any change in it, paralleled by the forms under the Payment of Wages, Employees' Compensation, Industrial Disputes, Minimum Wages and Payment of Gratuity enactments and the Supreme Court Rules. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Forms I, J and K of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Require the addresses of parties to a dispute; the award here gave only an address through a union, which frustrated service and relief. (¶¶ 3, 12, 13, 16)
Held
- The workman was represented before the Single Judge and knew of the challenge, the employer undertook reinstatement in November 2006 and sent three letters to report for duty, his counsel stated in October 2007 that he would join on a specified date, and he was warned in December 2007 that inaction would be treated as disinterest; having never reported, he must be taken to be gainfully employed elsewhere and uninterested in the job, so the award of back wages and continuity cannot stand. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
- Effective relief to a worker requires his permanent address on the record; henceforth, in all pending and future labour cases and at every stage, parties must furnish their permanent addresses even when represented by a union or counsel, and service on the workman must be effected at that address. With the four Labour Codes yet to be enforced, rule-making authorities are expected to provide accordingly. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; Bombay High Court order dated 10.06.2010 and the Labour Court award dated 28.10.2005 directing reinstatement with continuity and full back wages set aside; Rs. 10,000 deposited by the appellant to be refunded; direction that parties in all labour proceedings furnish their permanent addresses for service.