Khazan Singh (dead) through his legal representatives vs General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jind and Another

S.S. Nijjar, J.—In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for modification of final paragraph of the award dated 17.6.1982 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak.

The petitioner was an employee of the Haryana Roadways (hereinafter referred to as "the management"). He was working as a driver since 4.1.1969. His services were terminated after holding a departmental enquiry by order dated 23.9.1976. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was permissible under the rules. This appeal was dismissed on 22.8.1978. The petitioner, thereafter, served a demand notice on the basis of which the matter was referred to the Labour Court u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After examining the entire matter, the Labour Court held as follows :-"In view of the discussion above the termination of the services of the workman is neither justified nor proper. The workman has given the notice of demand on 6th October, 1978, while his services were term mated on 23rd September, 1976, and he has not explained the delay in raising his demand for reinstatement which has taken two years time. The workman, in my view, is not entitled to the wages for the period from his date of termination to the raising of demand dated 6th October, 1978, leading to this reference. I, therefore, give my award that the workman is entitled to re-instate-ment with continuity of service and full back-wages excluding the period upto 6th October, 1978 from the date of his termination. The reference is answered and returned accordingly."

Mr. Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after holding that the services of the petitioner had been wrongly terminated, it was not open to the Labour Court to deny backwages from 23.9.1976 til! 6.10.1978. Learned counsel further submitted that the management had not even raised the plea of delay and laches. The management has also admitted that the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 22.8.1978. Accord.ing to the learned counsel, the award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.

Learned counsel appearing for the management/State has submitted that the delay has not been explained by the petitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court was justified in denying the backwages.

Having considered the entire matter, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court was not justified in denying wages to the petitioner for the period from 23.9.1976 to 6.10.1978. Admittedly, the appeal of the petitioner, which was statutory in nature, was decided on 22.8.1978. The demand notice served by the petitioner was dated 6.10.1978. Therefore, it would not be possible to hold that there was an unconscionable or unexplained delay on the part of the workman in raising the demand notice.

Mr. Kapur has argued that since the workman has been denied backwages without any legal justification, the amount which has now become due and payable ought to carry interest. However, Mr. Sharma, appearing for the State has submitted that the interest could not be granted as the same has not been claimed in the writ petition. I am of the considered opinion that the argument of the learned counsel for the State cannot be accepted. This court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has to pass orders in the facts and circumstances of the case to do complete justice between the parties. The State Government cannot be permitted to make capital out of its own wrong.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Final paragraph of the award dated 7.6.1982 is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall also be entitled for backwages from 23.9.1976 to 5.10.1978. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that workman has died during the pendency of the writ petition. Now the legal representatives who have been brought on the record, are the petitioners. In view of the above, the amount shall be released to the legal representatives of the workman together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the award till payment. The State shall also pay costs of the writ petition to the legal representatives of the workman which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.

Petition allowed.