State of Haryana vs Vijender Singh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award dated 12.4.1999 (copy at annexure P/5) vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages and respondent was also awarded costs of Rs. 500/-. It was further ordered by the Labour Court that in the first instance entire amount of back-wages and litigation expenses shall be paid by P. W.D. Public Health and then it shall be at liberty to recover the same from the officer who arbitrarily terminated the services of the petitioner because the Government should not suffer on account of arbitrary and illegal act of its any officer.

This writ petition is filed not by the officer concerned but by the employer i.e. State of Haryana through Executive Engineer, D&P Public Health Division, Sonepat. When the case came up for motion hearing, notice was issued only qua back wages.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent has worked for a short period and that full back wages should not be awarded to him. He has further argued that it is not stated by the respondent in the demand notice (copy annexure P/2) and claim petition (copy annexure P/3) that he was not gainfully employed. As against this learned counsel for the respondent stated that though the respondent has not stated so in the demand notice or the claim statement but he has so stated in his oral statement i.e. deposition before the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner argued that this is beyond pleadings. However, when a reinstatement is ordered, back wages is a rule and the employer challenging the award of Ihe back wages has to prove reasons for denying back wages. I am guided on this point by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Palace v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another 1979 PLR 720. Therefore, the absence of pleadings regarding the respondent being unemployed in the demand notice and the claim statement will not help the petitioner.

Respondent has worked for more than one year i.e. from 1.11.1990 to 15.6.92 though with a gap of three months. There appears to be no reason as to why back wages or full back wages should be denied to the respondent when the termination was found to be wrong. In the case of Vikramaditya Faulty v, Industrial Tribunal 2000(1) SCT 782, the Supreme Court has held that once the termination of a workman is found to be illegal, the normal rule is to grant reinstatement with full back wages. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma and Others Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Another, . Moreover, in view of the specific order of recovery from the concerned officer made by the Labour Court, the petitioner will not be at a loss.

Considering all these factors, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Counsel for the respondent states that CM 106S9 of 2001 has become infructuous in view of the judgment in the main case. The same is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Petiton dismissed.