Surinder Pal vs State of Punjab

S.S. Nijjar, J.—In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks modification of the award dated 26.10.1983 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana wherein while reinstating the workman with continuity of service, he has been denied the back wages.

The petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the Punjab Roadways from 3.9.1969. He was placed under suspension while he was working at Ludhiana depot. He was subsequently reinstated. The petitioner was issued a charge- sheet on 3.12.1975, which is as follows :-

"On 25th July, 1975 while you were on duty with bus No. 3427 on Ludhiana- Nawanshehr via Rahon route, it was checked by the Central Flying Squad at Nehru Gate, Nawanshehr. On checking, it was found that you had collected the fare money from a few passengers and issued no ticket to them. Thus, you had pocketed the government money to the tune of Rs. 16.55 and misbehaved with the checking staff. Your conduct was found unsatisfactory while on duty."

On the basis of the enquiry report, the services of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 1.12.1980. He filed an appeal to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana but the same was dismissed. The petitioner served a demand notice on respondent Nos. 3 and 4. After failure of the conciliation proceedings the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication of the reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference is as follows :-

"Whether termination of services of Shri Surinder Paul, workman is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled ?

After completion of the pleadings, the Labour Court framed the following issues :-

(i) Whether there was a fair and proper enquiry ?

(ii) Whether termination of services.of the workman is justified and in order?

(iii) Relief."

On issue No. 1, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Management is defective and the allegations regarding fraud do not stand proved. On issue No. 2, the Labour Court has again held that the termination of the workman is not justified. The Labour Court had noticed that the workman was censured by order dated 21.4.1971. The Labour Court has also referred to the comments made about the honesty of the workman. As mitigating circumstances, it is noticed that the workman had clear record in the past apart from one censure. His conduct regarding honesty was appreciated. It is also held that the Enquiry Officer has not found him guilty of having committed fraud of an amount of Rs. 16.55. Exercising discretion u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. However, it has been held that the workman shall not be entitled to any back wages.

Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the categoric finding returned by the Labour Court with regard to the honesty of the'' workman and the defective enquiry and the charge not having been proved, the workman was entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and full back wages. Learned counsel has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr, PLR LXXXI 1979.

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel. There is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel that there is no justification for denial of full back wages to the petitioner-workman. Tn the Hari Palace case (supra) this Court has 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 premium on the unwarranted I itigative activity of the employer."

And again :

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

The aforesaid view has then been reiterated by their Lordships in G.T. Lad and Ors. v. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd."

In the present case, the petitioner had put in 14 years of service when the order of termination of his services was passed. There is no previous instance of dishonesty. In fact, the conduct of the workman had been appreciated by the respondents. No justification was given by the Management for denial of back wages to the workman. It has been clearly held by the Full Bench of this Court that full back wages is the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure from this rule. The Labour Court had no material on the basis of which it could come to a conclusion that the workman is not entitled to full back wages on reinstatement.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court dated 26.10.1983 (An-nexure P. 1) is modified. The workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages. Let the arrears of wages be paid to the workman within a period of two months from today. Since the workman has been illegally denied the benefit of full back wages, the amount of back wages shall also carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the award till payment. No costs.

Petition allowed.