Baldev Singh vs Labour Court and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition on behalf of the workman is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated December 18, 1984, whereby his termination order dated June 2, 1979 was held to be illegal and inoperative and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all the benefits of its continuity. As regards the back wages he was to be paid only half of it, i.e., for the period he had been out of job. It is this part of the award which is being challenged by the workman in this petition.

It will not be out of place to mention here that the management, Punjab Agro Industries Corporation, had also filed a writ petition being C.W.P. No. 220 of 1985 challenging the said award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman. The said petition was admitted to Division Bench, as it was ordered to be heard along with connected C.W.P. 616 of 1985. The question involved therein was as to whether in calculating 240 days, Saturdays, Sundays and paid holidays were to be included or not. The said question was answered in favour of the workman in view of the Supreme Court decision in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. American Express International Banking Corporation 1985-2-LLJ-539, and consequently the writ petition filed by the management was dismissed vide order dated Septembers, 1988.

It is most surprising and unfortunate that none of the counsel for the parties brought to the notice of the Court during the decision of C.W.P. No. 220 of 1985 that the present writ petition against the said award is also pending on behalf of the workman. Had this been brought to the notice of the Bench, this petition could have also been disposed of along with that, and, thus, saved the public time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the termination order was set aside and held to be illegal, the normal rule was that the workman is entitled to full back wages in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Palace, Ambala City v. Labour Court, Rohtak 1980-2-LLJ-294, and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Labour Court, Patiala (1981) 51 F.J.R. 464 (P&H). Counsel also referred to Tarsem Singh v. Labour Court, Jullundar (1981) 1 S.L.R. 646, Worhnen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. American Express International Banking Corporation (supra) and Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1983) 1. S.L.R.(sic), besides an unreported judgment in Nachhatar Singh v. Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 4079 of 1986, decided on March 12, 1987.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the workman had joined on probation on October 2, 1978. He absented himself without leave on April 3, 1979, and therefore, his services were terminated. However, subsequently he was appointed for a period of 89 days on September 10, 1979 and the said period was extended from time to time. According to the learned counsel it was for the Labour Court to pass orders as regards the back wages keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the said discretion has been rightly exercised u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. He, thus, submitted that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for interference in the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this plea, he placed reliance on Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd v. Its Employees'' Union 1989-2-LLJ-97.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that the case is fully covered by the ratio of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Palace, Ambala City v. Labour Court, Rohtak (supra) where it was held that full back wages will be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. In the present case, the Labour Court found as of fact that the impugned order of termination was to be adjudged as void and inoperative having been made in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, entitling the workman to the relief of reinstatement without the necessity of going into the validity of second order of termination. However, while awarding the wages, no reasons have been given as to why the workman was to be paid half wages only for the period he had been out of job. The matter would have been different if reasons had been given by the Labour Court for awarding half the wages. In the absence of any such explanation or reasons, the normal rule ought to have been followed. Consequently, this petition succeeds and the impugned award is modified to the effect that the workman, in addition to the relief of reinstatement already granted by the Labour Court, Would be entitled to the full back wages for the period of his unemployment. However there will no order as to costs.