Jarkani Fruit Industries vs Devbahadur Sakarbahadur

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order 5.7.2003 of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 530 of 1992 by which the Labour Court has granted reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service.

Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is already reinstated and continuity of service is also given since the respondent is not retrenched. The petitioner filed a purshis that the respondent was never terminated from services and the petitioner is ready and willing to allow the respondent to join duties, without prejudice to all rights and contentions. In the written statement filed at Annexure-C it has been stated that respondent was gainfully employed elsewhere and therefore, there is no question of granting backwages. Therefore, Mr. Dave contended that the Labour Court has not given any cogent reasons for granting the backwages.

Learned advocate Mr. Singh for the respondent has made an endeavour that the Reference is of the year 1992 and they have deliberately not appeared before the Court and, therefore, the proceedings went ex-parte. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared and the reference was restored but the petitioner has not filed reply after setting aside the ex-parte order. In this view of the matter the order passed by the Labour Court granting backwages from 18.1.1996, is just and proper. No interference is called for.

I have heard Mr. Dave for the petitioner and Mr. Singh for the respondent. While considering the case of both the sides, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service. Since the employer has stated that there is no retrenchment it will not be proper to set aside the order of reinstatement with continuity of service. However, for granting the backwages, no reasons are assigned. The respondent has not worked for the said period. Hence, it will not be proper to grant wages for the idle period. However, the workman has stated that he was not allowed to resume the duty on the ground of pendency of reference. Keeping in view the overall circumstances, and when the respondent is already taken back in service, the ends of justice would be served by giving him continuity of service right from the date of reference i.e. from 1992 which will be almost 18 years and in that view of the matter the back wages granted by the Labour Court is quashed and set aside. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of the Labour court granting backwages is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

For the salary for the period from 5.7.2003 till reinstatement, it will be open for the respondent to proceed with the recovery proceedings before the Labour Court.