Important Point – Back wages cannot be awarded as a matter of course.

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. The appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4.5.2007 thereby reversing the judgments and orders passed by the learned Labour Court and the learned Industrial Court and allowing the complaint of the respondent no.1-employee.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal can be summarised as under:-

The respondent no.1-employee (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "MRTU & PULP Act ) being Complaint (ULPA) No. 239/1999 contending that his services were orally terminated with effect from 13/14.1.1999. The complainant sought consequential reliefs of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. It was the case of the complainant that he was appointed on daily wages with effect from 21.2.1994 as Clerk by the appellant-Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") and his services were terminated on 13.1.1999. It was his further case that the retrenchment compensation or notice pay as required under the provisions of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short “ID Act”) was not paid, neither the procedure as required under the said provision was complied with. It was further his case that the seniority list of the employees was not prepared, nor displayed on the notice board and on the contrary several new employees were appointed. It was further his case that the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 (for short "Bombay Act") which were applicable to the Bank requires issuing 30 days of notice or wages in lieu thereof, was also not complied with. It was, therefore, submitted that the termination was illegal amounting to unfair labour practice which is prohibited under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act.

3. The complaint as filed by the complainant was resisted by the appellant-Bank. Though it was not disputed by the Bank that the complainant had put in 240 days continuous service in a year, it was contended that in view of the fact of his appointment being purely contractual in nature, no right accrued in his favour on that count. It was the case of the Bank that as and when there was a requirement of work in different Branches of the Bank, the services of the complainant were engaged for a limited period of 58 days by issuing orders from time to time. It was the case of the Bank that though the advertisements were issued for making recruitment after taking requisite permission of the Cooperative Department, the recruitment could not proceed further on account of the various proceedings initiated before the Labour Court and the Industrial Court by the Employees' Union. It was a specific case that ultimately in view of the permission granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a writ petition, the written examination as well as the oral interviews were held for the purposes of recruitment. It was also a specific case that the complainant had applied in pursuance to the advertisement and had also participated in the selection process. It was the case of the Bank that the complainant having failed in the said selection process, had filed the complainant.

4. The complainant examined himself in support of his case. The Bank examined one Shri Sheshrao Shamrao Gode, an employee of the Bank who was officiating as the Manager of the Bank at the relevant time, in support of its contention.

5. After perusal of the evidence, the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 7.9.2001 though held that the complainant had failed to prove that the Bank had indulged in unfair labour practice, held that he is entitled to get one month's pay in lieu of notice and 15 days retrenchment compensation.

6. Being aggrieved thereby, two revision applications were preferred before the learned Industrial C