The Andhra Pradesh High Court affirms that, where retrenchment of daily wage/casual workers in a public sector enterprise is found illegal solely due to non-compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, reinstatement and back wages are not automatic remedies. Instead, monetary compensation may be ordered, irrespective of the employer’s financial circumstances—thus reaffirming Supreme Court precedent and providing binding guidance for lower courts and tribunals in similar industrial disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/32361/2016 of SK. Masthan, Vs The Kovur Co-Operative Sugar Factory Limited, CNR APHC010076722016 |
| Date of Registration | 22-09-2016 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J. |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single judge bench (MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for tribunals and subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh; persuasive value elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court decisions: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal, Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V.Venkatesan, Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha |
| Type of Law | Labour & Service Law (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Public Sector obligations) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | In cases where termination of daily wage or casual workers is found illegal for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, reinstatement with back wages is not an automatic consequence. The appropriate remedy may be payment of monetary compensation. The Court further clarified that a public sector undertaking, being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot evade its statutory or constitutional obligations to workmen by citing financial distress. Judicial review under Article 226 in such industrial disputes is limited to correcting jurisdictional or legal errors and not for re-appraisal of evidence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court jurisprudence distinguishes between illegal termination of regular/permanent employees and daily wage/casual workers; monetary compensation is the preferred remedy for the latter. Public enterprises’ financial incapacity does not absolve statutory or constitutional duties. The scope of Article 226 is limited to jurisdictional review. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, employed as a Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) Security Guard in the respondent Sugar Factory since 1989, was terminated along with 280 other NMRs in April 2005 owing to non-operation and proposed privatization of the Sugar Factory. Both the Workman and Sugar Factory challenged the Labour Court’s award: the Workman sought reinstatement and full back wages; the Sugar Factory challenged the compensation award. The Labour Court had directed a fixed compensation of ₹50,000 in lieu of reinstatement. The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, confirming the compensation award and reiterating that reinstatement is not warranted where the enterprise has ceased operations, and the claimant was not a permanent employee. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within Andhra Pradesh exercising jurisdiction over industrial disputes, especially those arising from public sector undertakings. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals in India; provides reaffirmation of Supreme Court jurisprudence. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that in cases of illegal termination of daily wage/casual workers due only to procedural non-compliance (Section 25-F), reinstatement and back wages are not the automatic remedy; monetary compensation suffices.
- Clarifies that public sector undertakings cannot avoid liability to pay compensation to workmen by claiming financial incapacity.
- Sets out that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 in industrial disputes is limited—only manifest errors of law, jurisdiction, or natural justice will warrant interference with the factual findings or relief awarded by Labour Courts/Tribunals.
- Confirms that fixed compensation can be a just and equitable remedy in such cases, especially after significant time has lapsed and the employer’s operations have ceased or changed fundamentally.
- Lawyers for public sector employers should note that invocation of Article 12 brings heightened constitutional obligations; non-payment citing financial stress may not be accepted.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the factual backdrop: the Sugar Factory had ceased operations since 2003–2005, and the employee was a Nominal Muster Roll worker, not a permanent employee.
- Relied heavily on Supreme Court precedents (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal, Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan, Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha) to clarify that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence of illegal termination when the worker is a daily wager, and a fixed monetary compensation suffices.
- Ruled that since the Workman was not a permanent employee and the employer was not functioning, reinstatement was neither feasible nor just.
- Cited Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corp. v. G.S. Uppal to reaffirm that public sector undertakings, being ‘State’ under Article 12, must fulfill statutory and constitutional obligations—financial crunch is not a defence.
- Emphasized the narrow, supervisory scope of High Court review under Article 226: interference with Tribunal awards is justified only for legal, jurisdictional, or manifestly unjust errors—not for re-appraisal of facts or alternate weighing of evidence.
- Found no such error in the Labour Court’s award of compensation; thus, confirmed it and dismissed both petitions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Workman)
- Argued that termination violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Stated that services were continuous, duties were perennial, and he should be reinstated with all benefits and back wages.
- Cited earlier High Court direction for reinstatement (later set aside by the Division Bench).
Petitioner (Sugar Factory)
- Argued that the factory had not been functioning since 2003, making reinstatement moot.
- Claimed severe financial crisis as grounds for inability to pay even the awarded compensation.
- Denied the Workman’s status as permanent employee; maintained he was only a casual/NMR worker.
- Initially raised, but subsequently did not press, jurisdictional objections regarding the Tribunal.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a Nominal Muster Roll Security Guard, had been engaged at the respondent Sugar Factory since 1989 and allegedly completed 240 days of service in a year. In April 2005, the Factory stopped functioning and issued proceedings terminating 281 NMRs, offering that future hiring would be on contract and eligibility basis. Claims and counter-claims ensued: the Workman demanded reinstatement with back wages citing illegal retrenchment; the Factory cited financial distress and non-functionality. Both parties challenged the Labour Court’s award—Workman seeking reinstatement and benefits, the Factory seeking to set aside the compensation award.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 25-F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The judgment considered the procedural requirements for retrenchment and confirmed the settled law that violation results in compensation, not automatic reinstatement, for daily wage workers.
- Article 226, Constitution of India: The Court clarified the limited scope of judicial review, restricting interference to jurisdictional or manifest legal errors.
- Article 12, Constitution of India: The Sugar Factory, as a state-controlled public sector undertaking, was held to constitutional standards for labor and statutory obligations.
- The ratio of Supreme Court precedents was relied upon for interpreting these provisions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded; judgment delivered by single judge (MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.).
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or innovations have been set out or ordered in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and clarifies existing Supreme Court precedent regarding remedies for illegally terminated daily wage/casual workers and the legal obligations of public sector undertakings.