Mohinder Singh vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar

K.C. Gupta, J.—This is a writ petition filed by Mo-hinder Singh, petitioner, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for modification of the Labour Court award to the extent that he was also entitled to back wages.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner joined as Conductor in Punjab Roadways on 14.7.1970 and continued till 24.8.1976 when a departmental action was launched against him and his services were terminated. It was next averred that the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Court, Amritsar, and the Labour Court passed the award on 26.7.1982, Annexure P-1 whereby it was held that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but he was not allowed the back wages. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for modification of award of the Labour Court dated 26.7.1982 and had prayed that he should also be allowed back wages.

On 7.3.1983, notice of motion was issued. Thereafter, it was admitted on 10.5.1983.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner, Sh. J.S. Maanipur, Sh. U.S. Sran, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for State of Punjab and care fully gone through the file.

In para No. 7 of the award of the Labour Court, Amritsar, dated 26.7.1982, it was held as under :-

"The workman is entitled to the reinstatement with continuity of service. So far as back wages are concerned, it is a case in which he should not be given any back wages as he himself had confessed his previous guilt and accepted the order of his fresh appointment. He did not challenge that order giving him the fresh appointment. No doubt on that ground that order cannot be termed to be legal as it is an illegal order as above mentioned but the conduct of this workman in this regard is to be considered for granting him the relief of back wages. He is. therefore, not entitled to any back wages. The respondent is directed to take the workman on the given terms and the workman should report for duty within 30 days of the publication of the award."

Therefore, the petitioner had been reinstated with continuity of service. However, he had not been allowed back wages as he himself had confessed his previous guilt and had accepted the order of fresh appointment. In my opinion, once the petitioner had been reinstated with Contirinuity of service then he is also entitled to the back wages. Under Issue No. 2, the Labour Court had held that the order dated 22.7.1976 was illegal and rather nullity as he could not have been dismissed without following due procedure and conducting regular enquiry and as such there was no question that he was given fresh appointment on purely temporary basis. Thus, according to him, he continued in service. If that view is taken, then the Labour Court had no right to dis-allow the back wages. It has been observed by the Full Bench in Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer Labour Cnurl and another 1979 PLR 720, by another Full Bench in Radha Ram v. Municipal Committee, Karnala and another 1983 PLR 21 and by the Single Bench in Ram Singh v. State of Haryana 2000(3) SCT 409 P&H that once the termination is found to be bad, then it necessarily follows that employee in the eye of law continued to be in service and as a necessary corollary, he will be entitled to all the emoluments flowing from that status. Therefore, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled to back wages and there is no question that he had been given fresh appointment as he continued in service and the order dated 22.7.1976 will be treated as non est.

Consequently, this writ petition is accepted and the order dated 26.7.1982 is modified and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages.

Petition allowed