The Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D. Ranchi v.

Their
Workmen.
A Research submitted in partial fulfillment of the course Labor Law II for the requirement
of Degree of B.A;LL.B. (Hons) for the Academic session 2020

SUBMITTED BY

ANSH PRASAD

ROLL NO-1916

SUBMITTED TO

MS. PALLAVI SHANKAR

FACULTY OF LABOUR LAW-II

B.A;LL.B(Hons)

October, 2020

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAYANAGAR,

MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001
 Declaration By The Candidate

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A; LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled “The
Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D. Ranchi v. Their Workmen.” submitted at
Chanakya National Law University; Patna is an authentic record of my work carried out under
the supervision of Ms. Pallavi Shankar. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other
degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

Ansh Prasad Roll no- 1916

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

 Acknowledgement

A project is a joint endeavor which is to be accomplished with utmost compassion, diligence and
with support of all. Gratitude is a noble response of one’s soul to kindness or help generously
rendered by another and its acknowledgement is the duty and joyance. I am overwhelmed in all
humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge from the bottom of my heart to all those who have
helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something concrete
effectively and moreover on time.

This project would not have been completed without combined effort of my revered world
history teacher Ms. Pallavi Shankar whose support and guidance was the driving force to
successfully complete this project. I express my heartfelt gratitude to her. Thanks are also due to
my parents, family, siblings, my dear friends and all those who helped me in this project in any
way.

- Ansh Prasad

- 5th Semester

- B.A LL.B
 Table of Content

Declaration By The Candidate ............................................................................................................. 2

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................ 3

Table of Content ................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5

2. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT ............................................................................................. 7

3. FINDINGS OF THE COURT ...................................................................................................... 8

4. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................... 11
 1. Introduction

Case:- The Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D. Ranchi v. Their Workmen.

Equivalent Citation:- 2018 LLR 1167, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1587.

Appeal from the judgment of High Court.

This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 02.02.2017 of the High
Court whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by
the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 08.07.2008 passed by the Single
Judge of the High Court in W.P.(L) No.3962 of 2006.

Facts of the Case.

The question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Courts
below, namely, the High Court and the Labour Courtwere justified in awarding full back wages t
o the 37 workmen represented by Workmen Union after setting aside their dismissal order
holding it to be bad in law being in contravention of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and, in consequence, directing reinstatement of these workmen in services of the
appellant in their Public Health and Engineering Department (PHED).

Section 25 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 reads that Conditions precedent to retrenchment of
workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not
less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
 the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of
such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
 the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service] or
any part thereof in excess of six months; and
 notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 or such authority
as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]
Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

The appellant is the Department of the State of Jharkhand [Public Health and Engineering
Department (PHED)] whereas the respondent is the Workmen Union representing the
interest of the workmen working in the Public Health and Engineering Department (PHED).
The State made a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act to the Labour Court, Ranchi
at the instance of the respondent Union to decide the following dispute:

Aims and Objective

a. To study the case in detail.
b. To study the relevant provisions related to the case.
c. To study related case laws.

Hypothesis
The researcher persumes that the right to wage is the basic right given to the workers and cannot
be denied. But in case of retrenchment it can be denied.

Research Methodology
The research methodology adopted in the projrct is mainly focused on doctrinal way of research.
References in the project have been taken from the web journals, articles, newspapers, websites
and books. However, every reference has been taken in an unplagerised manner and due credit
has been given to each source in the bibliography section. Views have been prsented on each
topic with no outsourcing of facts. Every view presented is completely original in form of
comments and the facts and other contents are interpretation of authentic materials.

Sources
The sources that have been utilized for the purpose of making of this project are newspaper,
books, magzines, journals, thesis report, articles and online sources.
 2. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT

Whether the dismissal and non absorption of 37 acting daily wages Hastrashid employees as
mentioned in schedule ‘k’ in w ork charged establishment by Public Health Division
East Ranchi (Department of PHED, Jharkhand) is lawful. If not, what other reliefs their
employees are entitled to. By award dated 29.06.2005, the Labour Court answered in respondent
Union’s favour and directed reinstatement of 37 workmen with payment of full
back wages.

The employer, felt aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, filed writ petition in the
High Court of Jharkhand. The single judge of High Court by order dated 08.07.2008, dismissed
the writ petition filed by the appellant and affirmed the award passed by the labour court.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, the appellant filed intra court
appeal. By impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal
and upheld the order of the Single Judge, which gave rise to filing of this appeal by
way of special leave by the appellant¬ employer in this Court.

Thereafter an appeal was filed in the supreme court. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on the perusal of the record of the case, the supreme court was inclined to allow the
appeal in part and modified the impugned order awarding 50% back wages to workmen in place
of full wages.
 3. FINDINGS OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court held that, the Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages
could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside
of his dismissal/termination order. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back
wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in
his favour and directed his reinstatement in service.

It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that
after his dismissal from the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no
earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is also entitled to prove
it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the employee was gainfully employed
during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. Initial burden is,
however, on the employee.

In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some
cases, it may award partial depending upon the fact of each case by exercising its judicial
discretion in the light of the facts and evidence.The questions, how the back wages is required to
be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on
whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by
this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled

The Court is, therefore, required to keep in consideration several factors, which are set
out in the aforementioned cases, and then to record a finding as to whether it is a fit case for
award of the back wages and, if so, to what extent.

The Court concluded that that neither the Labour Court and nor the High Court kept in
consideration the aforesaid principles of law. Similarly, no party to the proceedings either
pleaded or adduced any evidence to prove the material facts required for award of t.he
back wages enabling the Court to award the back wages.
On the other hand, we find that the Labour Court in one line simply directed the
appellant (employer) to pay full back wages for a long period to 37 workmen while directing
their reinstatement in service.

The apex court was of view that the High Court in para 9 of the order placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya(D.Ed.) & Ors1 for holding that the question of back wages is covered by this
decision. The court held that the High Court erred in so observing. It should have seen that in
the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase the court granted relief to the concerned workers on
the facts involved in that case, the High Court did not apply the ratio of the decision in Deepali
Gundu Surwase (supra) to the facts of this case properly and only quoted one para of the
judgment in Deepali. Gundu Surwase which contained general observations. Those
observations had to be read in juxtaposition with para 38 which culled out the ratio of all the case
law on the subject.

Judgment

The apex court held that such direction of the Courts below awarding full back wages
to the workman has certainly caused prejudice to the employer.

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was
considered just and proper and in the interest of justice to award to these 37 workmen 50% of the
total back wages.

Thus an award was made to the workmen in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India for doing substantial justice to the parties concerned having reiterated the
legal principles which govern the question of award of back wages.

1
(2013) 10 SCC 324.
 4. CONCLUSION

For awarding back wages a court has to consider the question with a certainty of proof with the
aid of evidence that after the dismissal of the workmen from the service, he was not
gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The
employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the
employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim
any back wages. Initial burden is, however, on the employee.

The court has to look into the matter that the employee has not earned wages during the time of
the dismissal or termination. the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the
workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order. In other
words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because
the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:-

S.N. Mishra, Labour Law and Industrial Laws, (29th edition), SLP
P. L. Malik, Handbook of Labour and Industrial Law, Eastern Book Company.

Websites:

a. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174900463/
b. https://taxpublishers.in/Ency_CL/CL_Judg_Show?97759000?a0
c. https://www.lawyerservices.in/The-Management-of-Regional-Chief-Engineer-
PHED-Ranchi-Versus-Their-Workmen-Rep-by-District-Secretary-2018-09-20