ORDER :

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order/award dated 10.12.2013 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, (for short ‘CGIT’) Jabalpur in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/152/92 whereby the petitioner was permitted to join his duties in the establishment of respondent No. 1, but he was not granted back wages for the period from 20.8.1991 to 10.12.2013.

2. Facts of the case leading to this petition is that the petitioner was employed as Sweeper cum Waterman in Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank from 17.12.1980 and he continued to work there till 08.4.1984. Thereafter he was suffering from mental illness and was receiving treatment from DK Hospital, Raipur, hence, he could not attend his duties for long. After he was declared fit, he reported for duty on 20.8.1991. However, he was not permitted to join his duties by respondent No. 1 informing him that he has abandoned the service. On an application filed by the petitioner, reference was made to the CGIT, Jabalpur vide letter dated 03.7.1992 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’). It is alleged by the petitioner/workman that he was neither served with charge sheet nor provided with any opportunity of hearing. He had completed more than 240 days of service prior to his termination, hence, the termination of his services amounts to illegal retrenchment, Section 25-F of the ID Act was not complied with. Illness of the petitioner was informed to the Manager of the concerned Bank, despite that without conducting any enquiry or providing any opportunity of hearing, his services were terminated illegally.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide impugned order dated 10.12.2013, the CGIT, Jabalpur has held that the petitioner/workman was working as part time Sweeper cum Waterman with respondent No. 1 establishment and Provident Fund was also deducted which has been proved by the documents filed by the petitioner/workman. The learned Tribunal further held that services of the workman were terminated without following due process of issuing charge sheet, holding enquiry and further vide Ex-W-6, the petitioner/workman was informed that he will not be allowed to join his duties, therefore, petitioner’s claim to join the duties had been allowed by learned CGIT, but not granting back wages is against settled preposition of law. In this regard, he placed reliance in the judgment of Pradeep vs. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. and Others, (2022) 3 SCC 683 and Gowramma C. (Dead) by LRs. vs. Manager (Personnel) Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd. and Another, (2022) 11 SCC 794.

3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that if full back wages are not granted to the petitioner, then at least lump sum amount would be granted to him as pursuant to order passed by CGIT, Jabalpur dated 10.12.2013, the petitioner was permitted to join his duties on 12.5.2014 and thereafter in the month of July 2015 he was retired after attaining the age of superannuation. It is further submitted that though the petitioner had not stated in his deposition that whether he was gainfully employed during 1991-2013 or not, but only due to this he cannot be deprived from back wages, particularly when his termination has been held illegal by the CGIT. It is further prayed that atleast he may be granted lump sum back wages for the aforesaid period. In this regard he relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of State of Uttarakhand and Another vs. Raj Kumar, (2019) 14 SCC 353 and Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishan Pal Singh, 2021 SCC Online SC 751.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that burden of proof lies with the petitioner/workman to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the said period. But in the instant case, the petitioner had kept silence in this regard, hence, he is not entitled to get any back wages.