जबरन सेवानिवृत्ति मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट का अहम फैसला : नियोक्ता को उस अवधि का वेतन भी देना होगा
"शीर्ष अदालत ने कहा, गलत तरीके से नौकरी से निकालने या जबरन सेवानिवृत्ति देने पर नियोक्ता को उस अवधि का वेतन भी देना होगा, जिस दौरान कामगार बर्खास्त रहा काम नहीं तो वेतन नहीं का सिद्धांत अवैध बर्खास्तगी पर लागू नहीं होता।"
विवेक वाष्ण्रेय/एसएनबीनई दिल्ली। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि अगर कर्मचारी की बर्खास्तगी या जबरन सेवानिवृत्ति अवैध पाई जाती है तो नियोक्ता को उस समय का वेतन भी कामगार को देना होगा, जिस दौरान वह बर्खास्त रहा। सुप्रीम कोर्ट का मत है कि कर्मचारी ने अपनी इच्छा से नौकरी नहीं छोड़ी, बल्कि उसे काम न करने के लिए मजबूर किया गया। अगर उसे बर्खास्त नहीं किया गया होता तो वह निश्चित रूप से अपनी सेवाएं अपने नियोक्ता को देता। इस तरह की परिस्थितियों पर काम नहीं तो वेतन नहीं का सिद्धांत कर्मचारी पर लागू नहीं होता।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट का यह फैसला कई पुराने निर्णयों से हटकर है। शीर्ष अदालत के कई फैसले बर्खास्तगी को नाजायज ठहराने के बावजूद बैक वेजेस के पक्ष में नहीं थे। जस्टिस जगदीश सिंह केहर और रोहिंटन फली नरीमन की बेंच ने शोभा राम रतूड़ी के मामले में यह निर्णय दिया।
हरियाणा विद्युत प्रसारण निगम लिमिटेड ने कुरुक्षेत्र के रतूड़ी को 31 दिसंबर, 2002 को जबरन सेवानिवृत्त कर दिया था जबकि उनका रिटायरमेंट तीन साल बाद होना था। पंजाब और हरियाणा हाई कोर्ट ने विद्युत निगम के आदेश को अवैध करार दिया था।
हाई कोर्ट ने उसकी नौकरी अनवरत जारी रखी तथा कहा कि उसे सेवानिवृत्ति के सभी लाभ दिए जाएं। लेकिन उन तीन वर्षो का वेतन न दिया जाए जिस अवधि में उसने काम नहीं किया। हाई कोर्ट की एकल पीठ ने यह निर्णय 14 सितंबर, 2010 को दिया था।
रतूड़ी ने एकल पीठ के फैसले को हाई कोर्ट की खंडपीठ के समक्ष चुनौती दी। खंडपीठ ने 26 मई, 2011 को दिए निर्णय में याची को काई राहत नहीं दी। लेकिन सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने याची के तर्क से सहमति व्यक्त की। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि सेवानिवृत्ति का आदेश अवैध करार दिए जाने के परिणामस्वरूप कर्मचारी को नौकरी के सभी लाभ दिए जाने चाहिए। गलती नियोक्ता की है कि उसने अपने कर्मचारी की सेवाओं का इस्तेमाल नहीं किया। अगर याची को नौकरी पर बरकरार रखा गया होता तो कोई ऐसा कारण नहीं है कि वह अपनी सेवाएं नियोक्ता को नहीं देता। इन परिस्थितियों में हरियाणा विद्युत प्रसारण निगम लिमिटेड काम नहीं तो वेतन नहीं का सिद्धांत लागू नहीं कर सकता।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने एक जनवरी, 2003 से 31 दिसंबर, 2005 तक का तीन साल का वेतन कर्मचारी को देने का आदेश दिया। हरियाणा विद्युत निगम से कहा गया है कि वह तीन माह के अंदर सभी बकाया राशि का भुगतान करे। कर्मचारी के सेवानिवृत्ति लाभ की गणना भी दोबारा की जाए।
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11325 OF 2011
Shobha Ram Raturi ..Appellant
versus
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others ..Respondents
O R D E R
It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant was retired
from service on 31.12.2002, even though he would have, in the ordinary
course, attained his date of retirement on superannuation, only on
31.12.2005. The appellant assailed the order of his retirement dated
31.12.2002 by filing writ petition no. 751 of 2003. The same was allowed
by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on
14.09.2010. The operative part of the order is extracted hereunder:
“Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed; order dated 31.12.2002
(Annexure P-4) is quashed. The petitioner would be treated to be in
continuous service with all consequential benefits. However it is clarified
that since the petitioner has not worked on the post maxim of “no work, no
pay” shall apply and the consequential benefits shall only be determined
towards terminal benefits. However there will be no order as to costs.”
The denial of back wages to the appellant by the High Court
vide its order dated 14.09.2010 was assailed by the appellant by filing
Letters Patent Appeal No. 489 of 2011. The High Court rejected the claim
of the appellant, while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal on 26.5.2011.
The orders dated 14.09.2010 and 26.5.2011 passed by the High Court limited
to the issue of payment of back wages, are subject matter of challenge
before this Court.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy,
we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated
31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential
benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the
services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had
the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily
discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services
with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005, the respondent cannot be allowed
to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the period in
question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no pay”.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied, that
the impugned order passed by the High Court, to the limited extend of
denying wages to the appellant, for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005
deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside.
The appellant shall be paid wages for the above period within
three months from today. His retiral benefits, if necessary, shall be re-
calculated on the basis thereof, and shall be released to him within a
further period of three months.
The instant appeal is allowed in the above terms.
…....................J.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
NEW DELHI; …....................J.
DECEMBER 09, 2015. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
ITEM NO.116 COURT NO.3 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 11325/2011
SHOBHA RAM RATURI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS Respondent(s)
Date : 09/12/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Appellant(s) Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.
for Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kr. Chawla)
Court Master AR-cum-PS
[signed order is placed on the file]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11325 OF 2011
Shobha Ram Raturi ..Appellant
versus
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others ..Respondents
O R D E R
It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant was retired
from service on 31.12.2002, even though he would have, in the ordinary
course, attained his date of retirement on superannuation, only on
31.12.2005. The appellant assailed the order of his retirement dated
31.12.2002 by filing writ petition no. 751 of 2003. The same was allowed
by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on
14.09.2010. The operative part of the order is extracted hereunder:
“Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed; order dated 31.12.2002
(Annexure P-4) is quashed. The petitioner would be treated to be in
continuous service with all consequential benefits. However it is clarified
that since the petitioner has not worked on the post maxim of “no work, no
pay” shall apply and the consequential benefits shall only be determined
towards terminal benefits. However there will be no order as to costs.”
The denial of back wages to the appellant by the High Court
vide its order dated 14.09.2010 was assailed by the appellant by filing
Letters Patent Appeal No. 489 of 2011. The High Court rejected the claim
of the appellant, while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal on 26.5.2011.
The orders dated 14.09.2010 and 26.5.2011 passed by the High Court limited
to the issue of payment of back wages, are subject matter of challenge
before this Court.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy,
we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated
31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential
benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the
services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had
the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily
discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services
with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005, the respondent cannot be allowed
to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the period in
question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no pay”.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied, that
the impugned order passed by the High Court, to the limited extend of
denying wages to the appellant, for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005
deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside.
The appellant shall be paid wages for the above period within
three months from today. His retiral benefits, if necessary, shall be re-
calculated on the basis thereof, and shall be released to him within a
further period of three months.
The instant appeal is allowed in the above terms.
…....................J.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
NEW DELHI; …....................J.
DECEMBER 09, 2015. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
ITEM NO.116 COURT NO.3 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 11325/2011
SHOBHA RAM RATURI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS Respondent(s)
Date : 09/12/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Appellant(s) Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.
for Mr. A. Venayagam Balan,AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kr. Chawla)
Court Master AR-cum-PS
[signed order is placed on the file]
