The binding nature of the award, the obligations of the employer to reinstate the workman, and the entitlement of the workman to full wages from the date of the award's commencement.

G. PATHRI BASAVANA GOUD, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner had been working with the first respondent on daily wages since November 1, 1992. He was retrenched from service on April 1, 1994. He raised an industrial dispute in that regard contending that the retrenchment was illegal. That dispute was referred to the Labour court, Chikmagalur, by the order of the State Government dated February 16, 1995 under section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('act' for short ). On adjudicating the said industrial dispute, Labour Court, Chikmagalur, by its award dated January 3, 1996 at annexure-A, held the retrenchment as illegal and directed the first respondent employer to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without back wages. The operative portion of the award reads thus:

"reference is accepted partly. IInd party Management is not justified in refusing the work to the 1st Party workman with effect from April 1, 1994. The order refusing the work to the 1st party workman by the IInd party Management on April 1, 1994 is set aside. IInd party Management is directed to reinstate the 1st party workman into service to his original post and there shall be continuity of service of 1st party workman under the IInd party Management. 1st party workman is not entitled for any back wages from the IInd party Management. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Submit copy of the Award to the State Government for publication. "

( 2 ) THE award concerned was published on March 3, 1996. First respondent employer, being an officer of the State Government, appears to have moved the State Government with regard to the said award. It is on December 6, 1996 that the impugned order at Annexure-C came to be passed by the State Government in respect of implementation of the said award. Petitioner, in pursuance of the said Annexure-C, reported for duty on December 16, 1996.

( 3 ) THE workman accepted the award in so far as it denied full back wages to him. Employer also accepted the award in so far as it directed reinstatement with the benefit of continuity of service. That is how the award came to be implemented after both the parties accepted its finality.

( 4 ) IT is of course in implementation of the award that the dispute giving rise to the present Writ petition has arisen. The State Government at Annexure-C, while giving directions in the matter of implementation of the award, directed that, on the workman being reinstated in pursuance of the award concerned, the period from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of reinstatement would be treated as 'dies Non' and that the reinstatement shall be done subject to the condition that during this period, the workman would not be entitled to any service benefits. It is this Annexure-C that is sought to be quashed in this Writ Petition by the workman under article 226 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) AS noticed earlier, the award placed both the parties in both favourable and unfavourable circumstances to some extent. That is how the Labour Court decided on merits as to the relief to be given. So far as the employer was concerned, stipulation as regards reinstatement with continuity of service was unfavourable while denial of back wages to the workman was favourable. From the point of view of the workman, denial of back wages was unfavourable but the direction for reinstatement, with continuity of service was favourable. Either of the parties did not initiate any further proceeding in that regard and chose to accept the award as final. That means that, either of the parties thereafter could not take unilateral action that would amount to adversely affecting the interests of the other party and deny the said other party the benefits that the award has given. That is exactly what the State Government has done under Annexure-C and what the employer the first respondent has done while reinstating the petitioner workman in pursuance of the said Annexure-C. Annexure-C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document