State of Haryana vs Ram Kumar

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—By this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated May 7, 1999 (copy annexure P- 4) vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and full back wages.

Respondent No. 1 was working as a sweeper and was appointed as such on December 20, 1985. He worked upto October 4, 1988. Respondent No. 1 contended that his services were terminated, while the stand of the petitioners is that he had abandoned his service. Respondent No. 1 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1172 of 1989 on January 27, 1989. However, it was dismissed as withdrawn on November 4, 1992. Thereafter, he filed a demand notice on July 21, 1993. The Labour Court dismissed the claim of respondent No. 1 on the count of delay. Respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 18199 of 1996 before this Court. By the judgment in the said writ petition, the finding of the Labour Court that respondent No. 1 had left the job of his own accord being not proved, was upheld. However, the finding of the Labour Court that the reference was delayed and hence, respondent No. 1 was not entitled to relief, was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court. After the remand, the impugned award had been passed.

Position now remains is that the petitioner counsel is not in a position to say how the demand notice was issued at a belated stage and hence, the relief should not have been granted. Moreover, the finding that the workman having abandoned his job, which was not held to be proved, has also been upheld by this Court in an earlier judgment. Bven considering the fact that respondent No. 1 had filed a Civil Writ Petition on January 27, 1989 it can not be said that there was such a delay which would lead to the finding that respondent No. t had abandoned his job.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Labour Court has erred in awarding full back wages and the same should have been limited from the date of demand notice. We agree with this submission. Because respondent No. 1 chose a wrong forum that the proceedings were delayed and therefore, we find it proper to restrict the back wages from the date of demand notice.

As a result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The back wages awarded to the workman are restricted from the date of demand notice only. Rest of the prayer is rejected.

Petition partly allowed.