The Jyotisar Ganesh Credit and Service Society Ltd. vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The Management (Jyotisar Ganesh Credit and Service Society Limited, Jyotisar) has filed the instant writ petition challenging the award dated 11.8.1998 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the termination of services of the workman-respondent No. 2 was held to be illegal and un-justified and he has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice till reinstatement. In this case the services of the respondent No. 2-workman, who was working as a Peon on temporary basis, were terminated on the ground of misbehaviour with the co-employees and embezzlement of money collected from the members of the Society. The said dismissal was based upon a domestic inquiry. But when the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on preliminary issue, the domestic inquiry conducted by the Management was found to be unfair. The management led evidence in order to justify the said termination of the workman but it has failed to justify the termination and ultimately the termination of the services of he workman was found to be illegal and unjustified, and the order of reinstatement with full back wages was passed.

When the case had been taken for regular hearing no one put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2-workman. Twice the Registry was directed to inform counsel for respondents, but none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. Thus, in absence of the respondent-workman, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Management stated that in terms of the impugned order the workman has been reinstated and is still working with the Management. However, he confines his prayer in the present writ petition to the full back wages awarded to the respondent No. 2-workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Management further argued that the workman was appointed as a Peon for a period of six months and he was suspended before completion of his six months'' tenure on the aforesaid alleged misconduct. Learned counsel further states that the workman in his statement had not stated that he did not remain gainfully employed anywhere else during the period of his termination.

In view of above and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel has some force, therefore, taking into consideration the submission, the grant of full back wages to the respondent No. 2-workman is not justified, therefore, I reduce the back wages to the extent of 25%. In view of the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.