Gian Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others

J.C. Verma, J.—The Labour Court vide its Award Annexure P-2 dated 1.10.1980, on reference made by the Government u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that termination of services of the petitioner-Gian Singh was illegal and unjustified. It was held by the Labour Court that the services of the petitioner-workman could not be terminated on the basis of a complaint and it was necessary to hold an enquiry, if there were any allegation of embezzlement or corruption against him.

Admittedly, in this case, nor enquiry was held not such an enquiry was sought to be held before Court by holding that order of termination is illegal and unjustified had deprived the petitioner of full back wages, on the ground that the workman had not stated before it that he had got his name registered in the Employment Exchange or that he moved an application for employment. The Labour Court after noting this fact straight way reduced back wages of the petitioner-workman to the extent of 75% and allowed only 25% of the back wages. The concluding para of the Labour Court Award is reproduced as under :-

"As regard backwages, the workman does not say if he got his name registered with the employment exchange or he moved an application for employment. However, keeping in view that his services were illegally terminated, he is allowed back wages to the extent of 25% (twenty five percent only). He shall report for duty within 10 days of the enforcement of the award. The parties are left to bear their own costs."

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is not necessary to get name registered with the Employment Exchange, and in any case, even if the name of the claimant is not registered with the Employment Exchange, the full back wages cannot be denied except on valid and germane reasons.

The only point of controversy is whether back wages can be reduced without assigning any valid reasons. I think back wages cannot be reduced in such circumstances. I am supported by a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Hari Palace v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1979) 81 P.L.R. 720 which is again based on a Supreme Court decision in 1979 AIR 75. In the present case, the reasons given by the Labour Court that the workman had not got his name registered with the Employment Exchange, cannot be sustained in view of the Full Bench decision in Hari Palace case (supra). It is also settled law that onus is on the employer to prove that he was gainfully employed but it is not applicable in the present case as no plea of gainfully employed has been taken by the employer in the present case. The plea of respondent-State that he was a temporary hand and there were allegations against him, and, therefore, no enquiry whatsoever was required against him cannot be sustained, for the reasons that no person can be punished and no order can be passed by way of punishment without issuing him charge sheet and holding proper inquiry, the Labour Court was perfectly right holding that the order of termination was illegal and unjustified. The Labour Court after having given a finding that the termination was illegal and unjustified could not deprive the employee of the consequential benefits without giving any cogent and valid reasons. The Award of the Labour Court, for the reasons mentioned above required to be modified to the extent that apart from reinstatement and continuity of service as already awarded, workman shall be entitled to full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Ordered accordingly. The arrears shall be paid within six months from today.

The Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.