General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Panipat and another

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated December 16, 1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat on the application filed by the respondent workman u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act).

There is no dispute between the parties that the respondent workman was employed as a temporary conductor in the service of Haryana Roadways at Karnal on January 30, 1990 and his service was terminated during the period of probation on the allegation of embezzlement of the funds of the Corporation. The appeal filed by him against the termination of service was dismissed by the Transport Commissioner but for some reasons, which are difficult to appreciate, the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana Transport Department ordered reinstatement of respondent workman by accepting his revision petition vide order Annexure P-1 dated July 8, 1993. After about 3 years of his reinstatement, the respondent filed an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act for payment of back wages in the light of obseveration made by this Court on January 11, 1996 while dismissing C.W.P. No. 19045 of 1995, Subhash Chand v. State of haryana and Others. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has ordered the payment of back wages amounting to Rs. 68,180/- for the period from July 29, 1990 to August 30, 1993. Simultaneously, it has awarded interest at the rate of 18 % from the date of order of reinstatement till the date of realisation.

The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to award back wages and also on the ground that the direction or payment of interest at the rate of 18 % from the date of order of reinstatement is wholly arbitrary and unjustified.

We have heard Shri S. M. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, and Shri B. S. Badhran, counsel for the respondent No. 2.

The order passed by the respondent No. 1 for payment of back wages to the respondent No. 2 cannot be faulted because it is an admitted fact that the revisional authority accepted the petition filed by the respondent-workman against the termination of his service and directed his reinstatement. The effect of the order of reinstatement passed by such authority is that the service of the petitioner will be treated as continuing without any break. In other words, the order of reinstatement will relate back to the date of order of termination of his service. The payment of back wages was the necessary concomitant of the order of reinstatement. Before the Tribunal the petitioner neither pleaded nor did he lead any evidence to show that the workman was gainfully employed during the intervening period. Thus, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the direction given by the respondent No. 1 so far as the payment of backwages is concerned.

However, there is considerable merit in the grievance made by the petitioner against the direction given by the respondent No. 1 for payment of 18% interest to the respondent from the date of order of reinstatement. Ordinarily, the interest is awarded in such cases with a view to compensate the workman for the injury suffered by him due to wrongful denial of wages. However, while passing an order for payment of interest, the Tribunal was bound to take into consideration the fact that the respondent No. 2 had kept silent almost for a period of 3 years after the passing the order of reinstatement. He did not give any explanation for this long delay. In view of this, it is not possible to sustain the impugned direction which amounts to giving charity to the respondent No. 2 at the cost of public exchequer.

In the result, we uphold the order directing the payment of back wages to the respondent No. 2. However, the direction given for payment of interest at the rate of 18 % from the date of order of reinstatement is set aside. Instead, we direct the Petitioner to pay interest to the respondent No. 2 at the rate of 6% on the amount of arrears of back wages w.e.f. December 16, 1996 i.e. the date on which the Tribunal passed the impugned order. We also direct the petitioner to recover the amount of interest from the salary of the defaulting official.