Babu Lal vs Presiding Officer

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—This order will dispose of C.W.P. No. 2452 of 2011 and C.W.P. No. 2458 of 2011 as common questions of law and fact are involved in the actions brought against the same management by two co-workmen. The facts are taken from C.W.P. No. 2452 of 2011. The correctness of Labour Court award dated 12.05.2010 has been called in question by the workman in this petition. Industrial Reference No. 95 of 2009 has been answered against the workman by denying reinstatement and awarding instead lump-sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu thereof. In the connected case, reinstatement has been denied by an award of even date and instead Rs. 20,000/- compensation in lieu of reinstatement has been awarded. Six percent interest has been ordered to run in case compensation is not paid within three months from the date of passing of the award.

The admitted facts are that the petitioner was employed as a Sweeper on 09.09.2004 and his services were put to an end abruptly on 25.06.2008 without following mandatory procedure of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). On notice of the reference, the management put in appearance through authority letter in favour of its authorized representative who appeared on 19.08.2009 but failed to appear thereafter and the management was proceeded ex parte on 30.09.2009. The workman produced evidence in support of his case and entered into the witness box reiterating the averments made in the claim statement. The workman deposed that he remained unemployed post termination. The Labour Court has passed an ex parte award holding that the services of the workman were wrongfully and illegally terminated by the management.

The management is not before this Court assailing the impugned awards. There are, therefore, bound by the findings recorded against it.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when there is admitted non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act, and the petitioners had acquired industrial rights during service including those flowing from Section 25-B it was not proper for the Labour Court to have denied reinstatement and full back wages. In absence of any rebuttal evidence on account of management remaining ex parte after putting in appearance, there was no occasion or evidence contra to disbelieve the statement of the workman on affidavit that they had remained unemployed during the period of forced idleness to deny back wages in toto. Therefore, the Labour Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction. It has in any case exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, ILR 1979 (P&H) 243 that normally back wages should follow reinstatement unless there are reasons necessitating departure. The features of this case do not present anything indicating or necessitating departure from the legal principle that for violation of Section 25-F wages should not be denied.

The length of service spent in these two cases, however, does not justify denial of grant of relief since it is not brief, intermittent or casual.

The services rendered were well beyond three years. The effect of violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H has been held sufficient for award of reinstatement in view of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, , Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana), and Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, . The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8415 of 2009 titled Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. and another v. Gitam Singh, would not in my considered view avail to the benefit of the management in this case. There could be no dispute that reinstatement should not be awarded automatically but in the facts of this case, the Labour Court fell in error. There was no delay on the part of the workman from raising an industrial dispute and on failure of conciliation proceedings to have had their dispute against the termination decided on merits through industrial adjudication. This Court is of the considered view that partial relief granted by the Labour Court is wholly inadequate to serve the ends of justice. Both the workmen Were regular subscribers through the respondent management to contributory benefits under the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Employees State Insurance Act.

I have therefore no hesitation in quashing both the impugned awards. Resultantly, both the writ petitions are allowed. Reinstatement will follow with continuity of service and full back wages. The back wages may now be calculated by the management and paid to the respective workmen within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The management would remain at liberty to fix responsibility and recover back wages from all such who let it go ex-parte before the Labour Court as also against its erring occupier/manager found responsible for violating the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The interest would run on the arrears of back wages in the manner ordered by the Labour Court.