M/s. Creative Garments Ltd Versus Kashiram Verma

M/s. Creative Garments Ltd Versus Kashiram Verma  

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

 Civil Appeal No 5758 of 2012
M/s. Creative Garments Ltd. …Appellant
Kashiram Verma …Respondent
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The Management has filed the present appeal
challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 10.06.2010 vide
which the order passed by the Single Bench dated
06.07.2006 was upheld. As a consequence, the award of
the Labour Court was held to be valid. The Labour Court
vide its award dated 28.10.2005 had directed
reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service
from 08.12.1997 with full back wages.
2. A perusal of the paper-book shows that the
notice in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was
issued on 22.10.2010. As the respondent remained
unserved, fresh notice was directed to be issued on
13.12.2010. Dasti service was also permitted through
nearest civil court or trial court. On 24.10.2011, this Court
being not satisfied that service of the respondent had been
effected, directed for issuance of fresh notice subject to
deposit of ₹10,000/- to be paid to the respondent for his
travelling expenses as and when he enters appearance.
Dasti service was also permitted. Fresh notice was issued
on 24.07.2011 as the service was not complete. As per
Office Report dated 14.12.2011 in terms of the affidavit
filed by the appellant, the service on the respondent was
complete but he had not put in appearance till date.
Meaning thereby that he is not interested to defend the
present litigation.
3. A perusal of the award of the Labour Court
shows that the address of the respondent is through some
Union and he had not furnished his own address. A perusal
of the order passed by the Single Bench of High Court
shows that the respondent workman was represented,
hence he knew about the challenge to the award of the
Labour Court and also dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. The Order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal filed by the
Management against the order passed by the Single Bench
shows that the statement of the counsel for the
Management was recorded that the Management will
reinstate the workman and he shall be communicated
accordingly so as to enable him to report for duty.
Challenge was to the award of the Labour Court only to the
extent of award of back-wages. The appeal was admitted.
Thereafter, the Management had sent various
communications by Registered Post/Courier on 08.11.2006,
10.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 requesting the respondent to
report for duty. However, there was no response.
5. Further, when the matter was taken up by the
Division Bench of the High Court on 30.10.2007, the
statement of counsel for the workman was recorded that
he will report for duty on 05.11.2007 at 10:00 A.M. The
order reads as under:
“1. The learned Counsel appearing for
the Respondent No.1 states that the
Respondent No.1 will report for work at Amir
Industrial Estate, Sun Mill Compound, Lower
Parel, Mumbai. The learned Counsel for the
appellant states that if the respondent No.1
comes to Amir Industrial Estate, Sun Mill
Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai, at 10.00
a.m. on 5.11.2007 and meet Mr. S.K. Kedia, he
will be permitted to join immediately. The
statements are accepted. Put up on
6. The Management sent another letter to the
workman on 26.12.2007 specifically mentioning that his
inaction to report for duty would amount to presumption
that he is no more interested to join the duty. Request was
also made to him to furnish his permanent address.
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the
learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from his
client submitted that the respondent has not reported for
duty till date. Meaning thereby that he is no more
interested in joining duty and must have been gainfully
employed after leaving the job in question.
8. Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, in our
opinion the award of the Labour Court granting backwages and continuity in service to the respondent
workman deserves to be set aside as he has not reported
for duty despite the statement made by his counsel in
Court on 30.10.2007. The present appeal cannot be kept
pending as the conduct of the respondent itself establishes
that he is no more interested in employment what to talk
of back-wages.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The
impugned order passed by the High Court and the award
of the Labour Court are set aside.
10. A sum of ₹10,000/- which was directed to be
deposited by the appellant before this Court vide order
dated 21.04.2011 be refunded back to the appellant.
11. Before parting with the order, this Court would
like to direct the authorities working under the various
labour laws to take some corrective steps.
12. It is a case in which permanent address of the
workman has not been mentioned. The address furnished
is care of Union. All efforts made to serve him at the given
address remained futile. Finally, appellant served the
respondent and filed affidavit. The service was at the
address of the Union, which may not be interested to
pursue the case on behalf of the workman.
13. Effective relief can be granted to a worker only if
the permanent address of the workman is furnished in the
 14. Under section 15(2) and section 16 of the
Payment of Wages Act, 1936, if an application is filed by an
individual, there is a specific requirement of furnishing
permanent address of the applicant as per Form-A. If an
application is to be filed by a group of persons all the
applicants are required to furnish their addresses as per
Form-B annexed to Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules
15. Under Workman Compensation Act 1923, when
an application is filed by a workman for compensation, he
is required to furnish his residential address while filing an
application in Form–F (see Rule 20). In cases of
compensation for fatal accident a workman is required to
furnish his permanent address on Form-A (see Rule 6(1))
appended with Workman Compensation Rules ,1924.
16. Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for initiating
the proceedings under the Act, mentioning of addresses of
the parties to the disputes is required as contained in
Forms-I, J and K appended with Industrial Dispute (Central)
Rules, 1957.
17. Under section 20(2) of Minimum Wages Act, 1948
if an applicant files an application for payment of wages,
he is required to mention his residential address as
contained in Form-VI framed under the aforesaid Act.
18. Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, when an
employee makes an application for payment of Gratuity,
he is required to mention full address as per Form-I (see
Rule 7(1)) appended with Payment of Gratuity (Central)
Rules 1972.
19. If any party approaches any authority for a
relief, the first thing required to be mentioned is his
complete address. Mentioning of address of the
representative is secondary as someone may like to
appear in person. Even in Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
Order VI Rule 14A provides that in every pleading, the
parties are required to furnish their complete addresses
and if there is any change it is also required to be
20. Supreme Court Rules, Form-32 of the Supreme
Court of India Handbook on Practice and Procedure and
Office Procedure mentions that in every petition, the
petitioner and respondent are required to furnish their
complete addresses.
21. To simplify labour laws and strengthening the
protection available to workers, including unorganised
workers in terms of statutory minimum wages, social
security and healthcare of the workers. The Parliament
has consolidated 29 labour laws under 4 category of
Codes, namely, Wage Code, Social Security Code,
Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code
and The Industrial Relations Code. Different existing
statutes, as consolidated in four Codes, are as under:
1. Code on Wages, 2019
(i) The Payment of Wages Act, 1936;
(ii) The Minimum Wages Act, 1948;
(iii) The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965;
(iv) The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.
2. Occupational Safety, Health and
Working Conditions Code, 2020
(i) The Factories Act, 1948;
(ii) The Mines Act, 1952;
(iii) The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and
Welfare) Act, 1986;
(iv) The Building and Other Construction
Workers (Regulation of Employment and
Conditions of Service) Act, 1996;
(v) The Plantations Labour Act, 1951;
(vi) The Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970;
(vii) The Inter-State Migrant Workmen
(Regulation of Employment and
Conditions of Service) Act, 1979;
(viii) The Working Journalist and other
Newspaper Employees (Conditions of
Service and Miscellaneous Provision) Act,
(ix) The Working Journalist (Fixation of Rates
of Wages) Act, 1958;
(x) The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961;
(xi) The Sales Promotion Employees
(Condition of Service) Act, 1976;
(xii) The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions
of Employment) Act, 1966;
(xiii) The Cine-Workers and Cinema Theatre
Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act,
3. Industrial Relation Code, 2020
(i) The Trade Unions Act, 1926;
(ii) The Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946;
(iii) The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. Code on Social Security, 2020
(i) The Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952;
(ii) The Employees’ State Insurance Act,
(iii) The Employees’ Compensation Act,
(iv) The Employment Exchanges
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies)
Act, 1959;
(v) The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961;
(vi) The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972;
(vii) The Cine-workers Welfare Fund Act,
(viii) The Building and Other Construction
Worker’s Welfare Cess Act 1996;
(ix) The Unorganised Workers Social Security
Act, 2008.
22. The aforesaid Codes are yet to be enforced.
With the enforcement of 4 Labour Codes, we are hopeful
that in future, when rules are framed, authorities will take
care that parties to the dispute furnish their permanent
addresses in the cases relating to labour law disputes.
23. In future all the cases to be filed and in all the
pending cases, the parties shall be required to furnish their
permanent address(es). Even if the representative of the
workman is appearing, he shall furnish permanent address
of the workman as well. Even in proceedings subsequent
to first stage, it shall be mandatory to provide permanent
address of the party for his service. Merely mentioning
through Labour Union or authorised representatives, who
are sometimes union leaders or legal practitioners, will not
be sufficient. Service of notice of workman will have to be
effected on the permanent address of the workman.
New Delhi;


Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India