Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-VII]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Section 2(oo)(bb) - The 73-year-old petitioner, a former employee, filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging a labour dispute denial of reinstatement. Appearing in person due to financial constraints, he struggled with English submissions. The Court appointed Advocate Sanchar Anand as Amicus Curiae, who rendered pro bono assistance over 14 hearings spanning two years, facilitating a negotiated settlement. The respondents (employer) agreed to a lump-sum payment in lieu of reinstatement under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, initially offering Rs.10 lakhs, revised to Rs.15 lakhs, and finally settled at Rs.20 lakhs. Issue(s): 1. Whether a lump-sum compensation of Rs.20 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement is just and equitable for an aged workman who waives claims on merits, per Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The ethical duty of advocates, particularly young members of the Bar, to provide voluntary legal aid to indigent litigants to ensure access to justice, and to dispel the misconception that the Supreme Court is accessible only to the wealthy. Held, the Court directed the respondent-employer to pay Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) via Demand Draft within three weeks as full and final settlement of all claims, extinguishing the petitioner's rights to reinstatement or further relief. This was deemed just, equitable, and proportionate given the petitioner's advanced age (73 years), long pendency, waiver of merits-based claims, mutual consent, and the employer's voluntary enhancement of the offer. No costs were awarded. As appreciation for the Amicus Curiae's selfless service, the Court directed an additional Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to him by the respondents (Paras 9-11, 15) Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 199 : 2025 INSC 200Section 2(s) — Master and Servant Relationship — Canteen Employees — Non-Statutory Canteen Run by a Co-operative Society — Test to Determine Employer-Employee Relationship – Held, the employees working in a non-statutory canteen, run by a Co-operative Society on the Bank's premises with the Bank providing significant financial subsidy (75% of wages) and infrastructure, cannot be deemed to be the employees of the Bank (principal employer) - The mere act of a Bank playing a pivotal role in setting up the canteen, or providing necessary infrastructure, finance, subsidies, and controlling the working hours/days, is an "obligation to provide facilities to run canteen," which is distinct from a statutory or implicit "obligation to provide a canteen." - This does not make the canteen a part of the establishment - Appellant-Bank lacked the right to supervise and control the work done by the canteen employees, or to take any disciplinary action against them, the relationship of master and servant did not exist - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Parimal Chandra Raha v. LIC of India, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 611; Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 407; Paras 36-40, 46-48] General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd v. Achchey Lal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1024 : 2025 INSC 1175Section 17B - In cases of wrongful dismissal, lump sum compensation may be more appropriate than reinstatement with back wages in specific circumstances, provided courts balance the interests of the employee and employer with reasoned justification. Back wages are not automatic and depend on whether the dismissed employee was gainfully employed post-termination. The quantum of back wages is at the court's discretion if the employee admits to or is proven to have had gainful employment, with the employer bearing the burden of proof under Section 17B. In this case, the employer was found guilty of suggestio falsi (false representation) and suppresio veri (suppression of truth) before the Labour Court and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, violating natural justice principles. The employee, a driver dismissed after a vehicular accident, was awarded 75% back wages from termination to superannuation, along with full terminal benefits, modifying the High Court's order for 100% back wages. (Para 25, 30, 34, 44, 45) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahadeo Krishna Naik, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : 2025 INSC 218 : [2025] 3 SCR 100 : AIR 2025 SC 1172 : (2025) 4 SCC 321Section 25O - 'deemed closure' - If appropriate government does not communicate and order within 60 days of date of application - there shall be deemed closure - Upheld closure application and enhanced compensation offered to workers by an additional amount of Rs. 5 crores. Appeal allowed. [Relied on: Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority v. Vishnudev Coop. Housing Society (2018) 8 SCC 215, Paras 15, 16, 22] Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 673 : 2025 INSC 801 : (2025) 10 SCC 286Section 25O - Procedure for closing down an undertaking - “appropriate Government” - Who is an appropriate ...

Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025 [Part-VII]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags