Pancham Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Nijjar, J.—This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorari modifying the award passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court") whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been granted to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") in lieu of full back wages, after holding that the termination of the services of the workman was illegal and unjustified.

Surprisingly enough, the Labour Court in the award referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak 1997(1) PLR 99 : 1997(1) SCT 258 (P&H). After quoting the ratio of the judgment, the Labour Court proceeded to deny back wages to the workman by granting lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held as follows :-

"It was obligatory on the part of the management to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act before terminating the services of respondent No. 2 and the fact of its non-compliance entitles the Labour Court to pass an award in favour of the workman declaring that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages."

The Labour Court has given a finding of fact that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in a year preceding the termination of his services. The Labour Court has also held that in such circumstances, it was necessary to comply with Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In such circumstances, clearly the ratio in the judgment of Haryana Warehousing Corporation (supra) was fully applicable to the facts of this case. In fact relying on the ratio of the judgment, the Labour Court held that the services of the workman were terminated illegally by the respondent and the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service. Yet thereafter, without any rhyme or reason, the workman has been denied the grant of full back wages. It seems that the Labour Court was not aware of the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another 1979 81 P.L.R.720. In the aforesaid case, the Full Bench considered the question as to what criteria should govern the grant of full back wages to workman under the industrial law when the termination of his services is held invalid by the Labour Court and the relief of reinstatement is granted to him. After considering the entire matter, the Full Bench observed as follows :-

"6. However, all controversy now seems to have been set at rest by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and others, wherein the appeal by Special Leave was expressly limited to the question of grant of back wages. It has been held therein in no uncertain terms :

"Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a pre-mium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer."

And again :

"Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure."

The aforesaid view has then been reiterated by Their Lordships in G.T. Lad and others y. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd."

From the perusal of the above, it becomes obvious that full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating a departure. A perusal of the award shows that no cogent reasons have been given for departing from the normal rule. Consequently, the award deserves to be modified as prayed.

In the writ petition, prayer has also been made that respondents be directed to consider the case of the workman for regularisation of his services in accordance with instructions dated 18.3.1996 and to release the necessary service benefits which would become due and payable in case it is found that the services of the workman deserve to be regularised and the necessary relief of regularisation is given. In the petition it is pleaded that similar relief has been granted to one Anoop Singh who is junior to the workman because he had filed and succeeded in getting the necessary relief in CWP No. 13201 of 1997 decided at the motion stage on 15.1.1998. In the aforesaid case, the following directions had been given :-

"In view of the above, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the petitioner''s claim for regularisation in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government. In case he is found eligible, his services shall be regularised. While considering the petitioner''s claim, the decision in 1995(1) RSJ 230 and in CWP No. 8715 of 1994 : 1995(1) SCT677(P&H) (DB), (Anand Kumar v. HUDA) decided on September 13,1994, shall be kept in view. The needful shall be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs."

I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be met, if a similar direction is issued to the respondents in the present case.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court dated 19.5.1997 given in referenceNo. 142/1995 is modified to the extent that the workman is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. In case the amount of Rs. 10,000/- has already been released to the workman, the same shall be deducted from the arrears of full back wages which may be pay-able to the workman. The respondents are further directed to consider the claim of the workman for regu-larisation of his services in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government. In case he is found eligible, his services shall be regularised. While considering the claim of the workman, the decision in 1995(1) RSJ 230 and in CWP No. 8715 of 1994 (Anand Kumar v. HUDA) decided on September 13, 1994 shall be kept in view. The needful be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Let the arrears of back wages be also paid within a period of 30 days of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.

Petition allowed.