Randhir Singh vs Presiding Officer and Others

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This judgment shall dispose of C.W. Ps. No. 12219 of 1994 and 12467 to 12472 of 1994 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions.

The petitioners/workmen whose services were terminated were reinstated. However, only 10% of the back wages were awarded by the Labour Court and being aggrieved by this part of the award these writ petitions were filed by the petitioner workmen.

According to the petitioners, the order restricting the back wages to 10% was not justified.

The respondent-management through its written statement has challenged the writ petitions and according to the management, they admitted that the Labour Court has granted the awards for giving employment to the workmen from back date with 10% back wages. However, its contention is that as per policy of the Government, the petitioner cannot be taken back in service and, therefore, the decision of the Labour Court is not justified as it is against the policy of the Government issued from time to time.

It is further contended that if back wages are paid to one of the workers, thousands of the workers being employed on daily wages time to time and remained unemployed in between the period for long time will also claim back wages and the State will be burdened on account of payment to the said labourers. They have also challenged the contentions that the petitioners were appointed by the respondent management and that it is, therefore, their contention that the Labour Court has done injustice with the respondent management and not with the petitioner. Again and again in the written statement, they have challenged the award of the Labour Court in so far as it relates to reinstatement of the workmen. They had, however, stated that the award of 10% back wages is unjust, unfair, arbitrary and illegal on the part of the Labour Court and that the petitioners do not fulfil the conditions for remaining in service.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Inspite of the lengthy written statement of the management challenging the awards ordering reinstatement and granting 10% back wages, it has to be mentioned that these contentions are uncalled for in these petitions challenging the awards of the Labour Court but challenge to the awards is from the side of the petitioner workmen because the back wages are limited to 10% only. For challenging the claim made by the workmen in these writ petitions, the above averments of the management are unnecessary and have no bearing on the merit of these writ petitions and, therefore, cannot help the management in any way, the only question now to be considered is whether the workmen are entitled to full back wages or the back wages can be limited to 10% only.

If we see the awards of the Labour Court, no reason is stated as to why the back wages are restricted to 10% only. The fact that reinstatement has been ordered shows that the order of termination of the services of the workmen was unjust and wrong and when this is so the workmen are entitled to full back wages. The workmen whose services had been illegally terminated will be entitled to back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. It was not the fault of the workmen that they were unemployed during the period of enforced idleness. We find no reason, therefore, to justify the restriction of the back wages to 10%. The back wages which will have to be awarded to the workmen should be full wages. However, we find it fit to pay the back wages from the date of demand notice because the management should not be taxed with the back wages for the period from the date of termination till the date of demand notice.

With the above observations, we allow these writ petitions and order that instead of 10% back wages, the petitioners-workmen in all these petitions will be entitled to full back wages from the date of demand notice till the reinstatement. The awards of the Labour Court are modified to that extent.