AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 07.07.2000 whereby the writ petition was partly allowed.
The writ petition was filed to challenge the award wherein the order of termination dated 31.05.1989 was quashed. The learned Labour Court passed award of reinstatement with 50% back wages for the intervening period.
By the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2000, the award was modified to the extent of awarding back wages so as the other benefits. Pursuant to the order dated 07.07.2000, the benefit of wages was awarded w.e.f. 17.05.1999 i.e. the date of passing of award. The benefits of past service and back wages were denied.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that pursuant to the termination order dated 31st May, 1989, the appellants herein raised a dispute which was then referred to the learned Labour Court in the year 1992. The termination was found to be illegal, thus as a consequence of which the appellants were entitled to full back wages. The learned Labour Court, however, awarded only 50% of back wages to the appellants. The learned Single Judge yet nullified award of back wages and benefit of past service contrary to settle law.
Thus, it is prayed to award back wages pursuant to the order of learned Labour Court so also to grant the benefit of past service.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted that the Government has called the details of two appellants herein for regularization of their services. This was in view of the retirement of one employee namely Nand Singh in the year 2008 and one more vacancy arose recently. Thus, against clear vacant posts, the case of the appellants is likely to be considered for regularization.
Learned Counsel for the State Government, on the other hand, supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that looking to the nature of the appointment of the appellants and all the facts relevant to the issue, learned Single Judge rightly modified the award, which may not be interfered.
We have considered the rival submissions and scanned the matter carefully.
A perusal of the award shows that the termination of the appellants w.e.f. 31.05.1989 was held to be illegal as it was without compliance of the provisions of law. As a consequence of quashing of order of termination, Labour Court ordered for reinstatement with 50% back wages. However, taking note of the fact that the appellants were only daily wages employee, the learned Single Judge modified the award. Pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have already been reinstated and their matter is pending consideration for regularization.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the matter pertaining to the regularization of the appellants would be considered expeditiously in the light of the exercise already initiated by the Government. It is, however, prayed that interference in the judgment may not be made in view of the aforesaid facts.
Taking note of the subsequent developments and the exercise for regularization of service already initiated by the respondents, we are of the opinion, that the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs to be modified, as the order has been passed for reinstatement while maintaining the status of the employees as it was at the time of their termination. At the time of termination, the appellants were only daily wages employee and if that status is maintained, their services cannot be regularized.
Learned Counsel for appellant shown his satisfaction to the aforesaid and prayed for modification of impugned judgment to that extent.
In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that while appellant would be reinstated with the status as it was at the time of termination but would be entitled to be considered for regularization in service. The exercise for which has already been initiated by the State Government in view of the two letters placed before us.
The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the appellants though would not be entitled to the back wages prior to the date of award so as the benefit of the past services but their case would be considered for regularization for which necessary exercise has already been initiated by the State Government thus appellants'' status from daily wagers can be changed. We expect from the State Government that the aforesaid exercise would be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
The stay application accordingly stand disposed of.