Important point
Law in absolute term cannot be laid down as to in which cases and under what circumstances, in a labour dispute, full back wages can be granted or denied and Court would be entitled to grant relief having regard to facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:Labour Law—Reinstatement after setting aside the termination of employee—Law not in absolute term that workman/employee would be entitled to grant of full back wages—Court would be entitled to grant the relief having regard to facts and circumstances of each case for which several factors were required to be taken into consideration—Respondent workman was appointed, on a temporary basis on 14.10.1985 and his services were terminated on 24.1.1987—Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages holding termination invalid—No pleadings or evidence that workman remained unemployed during interregnum—Interest of justice would be sub-served if respondent was directed to be paid 50% of the back wages.
Held : A law in absolute term cannot be laid down as to in which cases, and under what circumstances, full back wages can be granted or denied. The Labour Court and/or Industrial Tribunal before which industrial dispute has been raised, would be entitled to grant the relief having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, several factors are required to be taken into consideration. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1 herein was appointed on an ad hoc basis; his services were terminated on the ground of a policy decision, as far back as on 24.1.1987. The Respondent No. 1 had filed a written statement wherein he had not raised any plea that he had been sitting idle or had not obtained any other employment in the interregnum. The learned counsel for the Appellant, in our opinion, is correct in submitting that a pleading to that effect in the written statement by the workman was necessary. Not only no such pleading was raised, even in his evidence, the workman did not say that he continued to remain unemployed. In the instant case, the Respondent herein had been reinstated from 27.2.2001. (Para 7)
We have referred to certain decisions of this Court to highlight that earlier in the event of an order of dismissal being set aside, reinstatement with full back wages was the usual result. But now with the passage of time, it has come to be realized that industry is being compelled to pay the workman for a period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all, for a period that was spent unproductively, while the workman is being compelled to go back to a situation which prevailed many years ago when he was dismissed. It is necessary for us to develop a pragmatic approach to problems dogging industrial relations. However, no just solution can be offered but the golden mean may be arrived at. In view of the fact that the Respondent had been reinstated in service and keeping in view the fact that he had not raised any plea or adduced any evidence to the effect that he was remained unemployed throughout from 24.1.1987 to 27.2.2001, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the Respondent is directed to be paid 50% of the back wages. (Paras 19 and 20)

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Whether the Respondent was entitled to be granted full back wages in the facts and circumstances of this case is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6597 of 2001.

2. The basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The Respondent herein was appointed purely on a temporary basis on or about 14.10.1985. The appointment letter issued to the Respondent No. 1 stipulates that the said appointment could be terminated at any time without any prior notice. The services of the Respondent No. 1 and others were terminated by the State in terms of an office order dated 24.1.1987. An industrial dispute was raised by the Respondent No. 1 herein. Before the Labour Court the Respondent No. 1 adduced evidence, but the Appellant did not. An ex parte award came to be passed by the Labour Court on or about 11.4.2000 reinstating the Respondent No. 1 with full back wages holding that the order of termination was invalid in law as although he had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year; the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with. The writ petition filed by the Appellant herein questioning the legality of the said award came to be dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.

3. In this appeal leave was granted confining to back wages only.

4. Mr. Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, would submit that although the award of the Labour Court was an ex parte one, it was obligatory on its part to arrive at a finding that the Respondent herein was not employed in any other concern. The learned counsel would submit that full back wages need not be granted by the Labour Court only because it was lawful to do so, and such an order can be passed after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Strong reliance, in this behalf, has been placed on Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Another [(2002) 6 SCC 41]; M.P. State Electricity Board vs. Jarina Bee (Smt.) [(2003) 6 SCC 141]; and Chief Conservator of Forests and Another vs. Rahmat Ullah [(2003) 10 SCC 92].

6. Mr. Manoj Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the courts normally grant full back wages, once it is held that the order of termination is illegal. Strong reliance, in this behalf, has been placed on Workmen of Subong Tea Estate, represented by the Indian Tea Employees Union vs. Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate and Another [AIR 1967 SC 420], M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa and Others [(1976) 4 SCC 222], Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar [JT 2003(2) SC 295]; and Nicks (India) Tools vs. Ram Surat and Another [(2004) 8 SCC 222].

7. A law in absolute term cannot be laid down as to in which cases, and under what circumstances, full back wages can be granted or denied. The Labour Court and/or Industrial Tribunal before which industrial dispute has been raised, would be entitled to grant the relief having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, several factors are required to be taken into consideration. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1 herein was appointed on an ad hoc basis; his services were terminated on the ground of a policy decision, as far back as on 24.1.1987. The Respondent No. 1 had filed a written statement wherein he had not raised any plea that he had been sitting idle or had not obtained any other employment in the interregnum. The learned counsel for the Appellant, in our opinion, is correct in submitting that a pleading to that effect in the written statement by the workman was necessary. Not only no such pleading was raised, even in his evidence, the workman did not say that he continued to remain unemployed. In the instant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 764

Important pointLaw in absolute term cannot be laid down as to in which cases and under what circumstances, in a labour dispute, full back wages can be granted or denied and Court would be entitled to grant relief having ­regard to facts and circumstances of each case.

Cases Referred (11)

Important point
Law in absolute term cannot be laid down as to in which cases and under what circumstances, in a labour dispute, full back wages can be granted or denied and Court would be entitled to grant relief having regard to facts and circumstances of each case.