AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Chandra Shekher Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as CSA University) and its authorities have filed this writ petition against award dated 13.8.2002 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II) U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication case No. 162 of 2000.
The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman respondent No. 2 Rakesh w.e.f. 1.1.1999 was just and legal or not. Labour Court held that termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages.
Respondent No. 2 was employed on 11.3.1988 on the post of Peon/ Chaukidar.
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was not an Industry. Labour Court after placing reliance upon seven Judges Authority of the Supreme Court reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa and Others, held that the university was an industry. Even though the constitution Bench of five Judges reported in State of U.P. Vs. Jai Bir Singh, has referred the matter to a larger Bench but until decision by a larger Bench the authority reported in Bangalore Water Works has to be treated as binding. Labour Court rightly held that petitioner was an industry. The contention of the petitioner was that it was engaged in imparting the education in agricultural science and doing agricultural research.
It was also contended that respondent No. 2 was a daily wager. It was also contended that he was found to have committed the misconduct, hence in order to avoid the inquiry he stopped coming w.e.f. 1.1.1999. Admittedly, no compensation as required by section 6-N of U.P.I.D. Act was paid. The labour Court held that it was fatal. Respondent No. 2 was engaged in connection with fisheries research. In December, 1998 some fishes was stolen from the pond in respect of which he was doing duty. He was deputed to guard fishes in the pond. Labour Court found that in respect of allegation of theft of the fishes in December 1998, no inquiry was conducted against the respondent No. 2.
I do not find any error in the finding of the Labour Court that a termination was bad. If respondent No. 2 had committed misconduct then & domestic inquiry should have been held which was not done.
However, as far as payment of back wages is concerned absolutely nothing was stated by respondent No. 2 that he was not gainfully employed anywhere else after termination of his services and how he was meeting his and his family''s expenses. Without saying single word in this regard entire back wages were awarded automatically. In view of the following authorities of the Supreme Court, back wages cannot be awarded automatically unless it is proved by the workman that he was not gainfully employed anywhere else and he made sincere efforts for gainful employment after termination of his services. "General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh" 2005 (106) FLR 607 (SC) : 2005 (34) AIC 370 (SC) , and U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mitthu Singh, Moreover, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that financial position of petitioner is not much good and even though in several cases High Court has passed the orders of regularisation of services of daily wagers employed by the petitioner still State Government has not supplied requisite funds.
Accordingly, impugned order is modified and direction regarding reinstatement is maintained. However, direction regarding payment of back wages is set aside.
Respondent No. 2, Rakesh, son of Sri Kishori Lai Jha is directed to give joining report on 5.11.2008 to the Registrar of the University. On the said date respondent No. 2 shall be taken back in service Respondent No. 2 shall also work honestly and to the full satisfaction of his immediate superiors.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.