Harbhajan Singh vs Labour Court

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.—The challenge is to the part of the award dated 12.3.1992 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala whereby back-wages have been denied. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the workman had put in six years of service when his services were terminated on 20.5.1985 and claimed reinstatement. During the pendency of the reference, he had withdrawn the same and raised fresh demand on 18.5.1989 which was received by the Labour Court and numbered as 1185 of 1989. Resultantly the Labour Court held that the management could not be burdened with back-wages on account of the conduct of the workman. A perusal of the order dated 18.5.1989 would go on to show that first reference of 1987 was not against the proper party which led to the second reference. The Labour Court has rightly denied back-wages oh valid ground. The argument that the back-wages were liable to be paid from the date of second demand notice dated 18.5.1989 is not justifiable since it is discretion of the Labour Court to award or reduce the back-wages keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and no straitjacket formula and the said discretion is not liable to be interfered with easily can be evolved. In P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Ram, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that the Labour Court is to see whether the industry may be compelled to pay the workman for the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all. Similarly, in Reetu Marbles Vs. Prabhakant Shukla, it was held that 100% back-wages are not to be granted mechanically and they do not flow automatically on account of reinstatement.

That similar observations had been laid down in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, wherein it has been held that where the Tribunal has acted illegally in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it and decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to the principles of natural justice, this Court would interfere. The error of law has to be apparent on the face of the record and it has to be manifestly clear that the conclusion of law recorded by the Tribunal is on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provisions or in ignorance of the same. Thus, what can be corrected is an error of law, which should be of such a character which is apparent on the face of the record and if the statutory provision is capable of two constructions and one of it had been adopted by the Tribunal, it may not be desirable to correct the same by way of writ of certiorari.

The Apex Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, has laid down the principles regarding the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while examining the Labour Court award and felt that this Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction and in case error is manifest on the face of the proceedings, this Court is to interfere. In the present case, no such error of law or fact has been shown which would warrant interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned award of Labour Court and the writ petition is dismissed.