M/s Radha Rubber Industries, Jalandhar vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 7.1.1999, copy Annexure P/1, vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity thereof and full back wages.

The challenge to the award in this writ petition is only against the grant of full back wages.

The facts of the case are that the respondent, complaining that his services were terminated on 7.10.1988, raised a demand by way of demand notice which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court and ex-parte award was passed in favour of the respondent. The respondent thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court being Civil Writ petition No. 3176 of 1997. By the Order in that writ petition, the award was set-aside and the case was remanded to the Labour Court. The order of this Court as reproduced in the award of the Labour Court is as under :-

"During the course of arguments, a consensus has been arrived at between learned counsel for the parties. It is jointly stated by them that award Annexure P-4 may be set aside and the parties be directed to appear before the Labour Court, Jalandhar which in turn be directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of parties appear before it. We may state here that the consensus has been arrived at between learned counsel for the parties as there is serious dispute with regard to service of the respondent- management before the Labour Court and it is for that precise reason, and rightly so, that it has been thought to have trial on merits of the case.

In view of what has been said by learned counsel for the parties, as noted above, we set aside the award, Annexure P-4 and remit the case to the Labour Court, Jalandhar for trial de novo.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Jalandhar on April 15, 1988, the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date the parties appear before it. It shall be open to the petitioner to make a correction in the name of the respondent-management."

After the matter was remanded, the Labour Court heard the parties and passed the impugned award, a part of which is now being challenged by way of this writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that earlier the name of the employee was wrongly mentioned and therefore, the matter proceeded ex-parte and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be taxed with the back wages from the initial stage. It is not in dispute that name of the petitioner is M/s Radha Rubber Industries, In the earlier proceedings Labour Court proceeded against Radha Rubber Factory as that was the name given by respondent workman in the demand notice.

Counsel for the respondent-workman argued that both are the same concerns and there was no name mentioned on the premises of the petitioner factory and, therefore, notice issued by the Labour Court could be said to be duly served on the petitioner. However, in view of the statement before this Court in the earlier writ petition and the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, this question has been simplified.

It is clear from the high-lighted portion of the order of this Court in the said writ petition that there was consensus between the parties regarding the service of the petitioner. This being so, it would not lie in the mouth of respondent now that the notice in the earlier proceedings before the Labour Court was duly served on the petitioner. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner has been able to make out a case for exception that the back wages cannot be awarded prior to the time of remanding this matter by this Court, by the order in the earlier writ petition. The order was passed on 25.3.1988 and, therefore, I find it proper to modify the award of back wages from that date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to show that the respondent was gainfully employed in the concern started by a person, who was earlier the partner of the petitioner concern, in the name and style of M/s Vishwakarma Rubber Industries. However, he has not been able to substantiate it. There is a finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner tried to substantiate the said contention by examining Shri Bhawan Dass, as MW-3 before the Labour Court. The said witness has not supported the contention of the petitioner. It has been observed by the Labour Court as under :-

".....the respondent sought to substantiate these issues by ushering Shri Bhawan Dass MW3 who is proprietor of M/s Vishwakarma Rubber Industries, but a perusal of statement of Shri Bhawan Dass MW3 shows that he totally disappointed the respondent. This witness very categorically and emphatically on the basis of the attendance register, wages register, cash book and ledge brought by him stated that Shri Baldev Singh workman is not working in their factory. This witness on the request of the authorised representative of the respondent-management was allowed to be put certain questions in the form of cross-examination but the questions that were put to him in the form of cross-examination also could not illicit (elicit ?) anything from him that could be useful to the respondent. This witness denied that when his son Narinder Kumar Sindhi was partner of the respondent firm, he had brought Baldev Singh workman to work with the respondent and when he left the partnership, he took him along to work in Vashwakarma Rubber Industries. So statement of Shri Bhawan Kumar MW3 infact caused such dent and damages to the case of the respondent which is beyond repair."

I do not find any reason to differ from the finding of the Labour Court in view of the detailed reasons given by it. In view of the above reasons, no further reduction can be made in the award of back wages.

As a result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The back wages awarded by the Labour Court are restricted from 25.3.1988.

Petition partly allowed.