JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. :---This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Award dated 17th December, 1988 made by the 1st Labour Court, Bombay, in Reference (IDA) No. 376 of 1983 under section 10(1) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The first respondent is a division of a limited company known as "Narang International Hotel Pvt. Ltd.", which exclusively carries on the business of catering for airlines. The petitioner is a registered trade union, which represents the workmen employed by the first respondent. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition on behalf of one Salvador Vaz, an ex-employee of the first respondent (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "the workman").

3. The workman joined the service of the first respondent on 1st January, 1978 as a Hamal in the Washing Department of the first respondent. The main work carried out in the Washing Department is the washing and cleaning of utensils and cutlery used in the catering work. Some time in 1981, the workman came to be promoted as Head Hamal of the Washing Department. As Head Hamal, apart from doing work as a Hamal, he was also required to get the work done from his co-workmen. His last drawn wages were Rs. 906/- per month. On 18th March, 1982, the service of the workman was terminated by a written order, which reads :

"The Management regrets to inform you that your services as Head Hamal (Supervisor) are no longer required by the Company and hence it has been terminated with immediate effect with one months salary in lieu of notice."

The workman was given one months salary and his service was terminated. He raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement, which came to be referred to the Labour Court vide Reference (IDA) No. 376 of 1983. The Labour Court has, by the impugned Award, held that the order of termination of service of the workman was illegal, declined to grant any relief to the workman by way of reinstatement, but directed payment of 9 months full wages as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and 9 months wages as compensation in lieu of back-wages, in all, 18 months wages in lieu of both reliefs. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award, the petitioner has by the present writ petition challenged the impugned Award on behalf of the workman.

4. It may be mentioned, en passant, that the reference was in respect of two workmen, Salvador Vaz and Rajbir Singh, but I am informed at the Bar that the petitioner-union has not challenged the Award in respect of Rajbir Singh, but has only challenged the Award on behalf of Salvador Vaz.

5. Dr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the Labour Court wholly erred in law in refusing the normal relief of reinstatement with full back-wages, when there was a clear finding that the order of termination of service dated 18th March, 1982 was illegal. He contends that the reasons given for declining the relief are contrary to the principles laid down by a catena of judgments of several High Courts, including this High Court, and judgments of the Supreme Court.

6. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent, however, rejoins that the law on the subject is well-settled and, although the normal rule, when an order of termination of service is found illegal, is one of reinstatement with full back-wages, there may be exceptional circumstances justifying the refusal to grant the relief of reinstatement and also the refusal of full back-wages. In the submission of the learned Counsel, the present case is one where there are exceptional circumstances justifying the Award of the Labour Court, by which the relief of reinstatement was rejected and substituted by a direction for payment of compensation and full back-wages have been refused and substituted by compensation equivalent to 9 months back-wages. Mr. Singh contends that, according to the first respondent, at the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document