INCHARGE OFFICER Vs. SHANKAR SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The only question to be considered in this appeal by special leave is with regard to the relief of reinstatement granted to the respondent by the Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in his judgment and order dated August 13, 2001 and affirmed by the Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated December 9, 2004 in the writ appeal. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Rs. ID Act) The course of decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question. In the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr., (2009) 15 SCC 327, delivering the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court - namely, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479; Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 ; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575; Madhya Pradesh Admn v. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748; Sita Ram and Ors. v. Motil Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008) 5 SCC 75; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramasahai and Anr., (2006) 11 SCC 684; Ghaziabad Development Authority and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and Anr., (2008) 1 SCC 575 and stated as follows:

(3.) Jagbir Singh1 has been applied very recently in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3815 of 2010) decided on April 26, 2010 wherein this Court stated: