Bank of India vs Central Industrial Tribunal and Others

Hon''ble Arun Tandon, J.—The services of the workman concerned were dispensed with by the employers w.e.f. 02.04.1975. Not being satisfied the workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur being I.D. Case No. 105 of 1983. The Labour Court by means of the Award dated 29.07.1985 has held that there has been violation of Section 25-F of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1947) in the matter of termination of services of the workman. He had not been paid his compensation nor any notice has been given as per the provisions of the Act, 1947. The Labour Court, therefore, directed reinstatement with full back wages. In paragraph 19 of the Award it was provided that the management is free to deal with the workman after reinstatement in accordance with law.

The employers in compliance with the provisions of Sections 25- F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act, 1947, by means of one common order reinstated the petitioner, paid him full back wages along with other statutory dues and simultaneously terminated his services vide dated 17.12.1985.

The workman, not being satisfied, raised another industrial dispute being Adjudication Case No. 101 of 1987.

The Labour Court under its Award dated 29.10.1990 has held that there has been compliance of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act, 1947 and the issue framed in that regard has been answered in favour of the employers. However, the Labour Court has proceeded to hold that since the actual reinstatement had not been effected as per the Award dated 29.07.1985, the order terminating the employment of the workman dated 17.12.1985 is illegal. It is against this Award that the present writ petition has been filed.

In the present writ petition an interim order was granted on 20.03.1991 whereby the entire award was stayed.

Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the records this Courts finds that in the facts of the present case the Award of the Labour Court insofar as it holds that there has been only paper compliance of the Award as no actual reinstatement had been made is totally unfounded. It is always open to an employer not to take work from the employee provided the employee is paid his full salary. In the facts of the case the Labour Court itself has found that there has been compliance of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act, 1947 in the matter of termination of services of the workman concerned. If Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H have been complied with and the workman had been paid his full salary in terms of the Award made earlier dated 29.07.1985, it is wholly immaterial as to whether actual work had been taken from him or not.

This Court has no hesitation to record that in the facts of the case the Award of the Labour Court holding termination to be bad only on the ground that actual reinstatement has not been effected and only paper reinstatement has been made is illegal. The Award of the Labour Court dated 29.10.1990 is hereby quashed.

Writ petition is allowed.