V. Suseela vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

C.V. Nagardjuna Reddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

The writ petition is filed partly aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, Guntur, made in I.D. No. 108 of 1990, dated 06.12.1994, to the extent the petitioner is denied the reinstatement into service and the back wages.

The petitioner was employed as watchman in Guntur Medical College Women''s Hostel, the 2nd respondent herein, at the relevant point of time. She was drawing a monthly consolidated pay of Rs. 275/- per month. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner was served with a Memo dated 29.11.1989 seeking her explanation by the Principal of the college and after receiving the petitioner''s explanation, dated 03.12.1989, the Principal passed an order on 12.12.1989 warning the petitioner to be more careful in future. However, a few days later i.e., on 16.12.1989, the petitioner''s services came to be terminated by the 2nd respondent with effect from 17.12.1989. It has been mentioned in the said order that the Executive Committee of the Women''s Students Hostel, Guntur Medical College decided to appoint gurka watchman in Women''s Students Hostel Guntur Medical College and that the services of the petitioner and another are no longer required and that their services are terminated with immediate effect from 17.12.1989. There was also direction in the said order to the petitioner and another watchman to vacate the hostel premises immediately. At the end of the order it was mentioned that the petitioner and another would be paid necessary compensation as per Rules.

This order of termination was questioned before the Labour Court, Guntur. After detailed hearing of the case, the Labour Court made its award in I.D. No. 108 of 1990, dated 06.12.1994. The Labour Court accepted the plea of the petitioner that the termination was made in violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"). A specific finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that while the petitioner''s services were terminated by the order dated 16.12.1989 with effect from 17.12.1989, the 2nd respondent sought to tender compensation amount under Ex.M-10, notice dated 20.12.1989 and that therefore, Ex.M-10, notice, does not constitute sufficient requirement of the compliance with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act. This finding contained in the award has not been questioned independently by the 2nd respondent and it has thus become final.

However, the Labour Court while holding the termination dated 16.12.1989 as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act declined to grant the relief of reinstatement by giving the justification as under:

The records placed before me disclosed that the secretary of the Women''s Hostel lodged complaint in writing to the Principal of the Medical College against the misbehavior and un-parliamentary language of the petitioner and her husband. Exs.M-3 and M-4 are the complaints under dated 23.11.1989. In the circumstances, I fee the reinstatement of the petitioner into service will not be in the interest of the climates of the hostel instead of reinstatement payment of Rs. 6000/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice.

I am unable to find myself in agreement with the reasoning of the Labour Court for denying relief of reinstatement to the petitioner. As already noticed hereinabove, when the petitioner''s conduct was questioned by issuing a Memo on 29.11.1989, further action on that memo was dropped by the 2nd respondent after receiving explanation dated 03.12.1989 from the petitioner with a warning to be careful in future. Thus, there was no further departmental action against the petitioner. This being the fact, the Labour Court, in my considered opinion, is not justified in delving into the alleged past conduct of the petitioner in denying reinstatement and back wages.

It has been held by the Apex Court in a case between Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Vinod Krishan Sharma and Anr. 2000-III-LLJ 1678 that once termination is found to be violative of Section 25(F) of the Act, such a termination is ab initio void and that the result would be that the workman concerned would be deemed to be in service through out.

Following this authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement and a direction, accordingly, is issued.

As regards the pecuniary benefits, the Labour Court has awarded Rs. 6000/- as compensation. Though, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade me to order for payment of full back wages, I am not inclined to grant the relief of back wages on the peculiar facts of this case viz., that there is a long lapse of more than eleven (11) years after passing of the award by the Labour Court. The petitioner has not asserted that she has not been gainfully employed. It is reasonable to presume that the petitioner would not have kept herself idle for all these years when she is admittedly out of employment of the 2nd respondent. However, I am inclined to direct that the 2nd respondent shall give all the notional benefits of the past service to the petitioner for the purposes of future service and also retirement benefits, if any.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.