( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 24. 9. 2001 passed by the Labour Court-VIII, Karkardooma, delhi directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondents Kishan Devi and bhagwati Devi raised an industrial dispute against the petitioner to the following effect:

"whether the services of Smt. Kishan Devi and Smt. Bhagwati Devi have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. "

( 3 ) WHILE the contention of the respondents was that they were working as helpers with the petitioner management at a monthly salary of rs. 750/- p. m. each, the stand of management was that there was no woman helper in their factory and both the respondents were working as part-time sweepers. They used to come for sweeping the floors only for two hours a day, at the time of opening of factory and after finishing their work used to go. They did not work under supervision of anyone. Both of them stopped coming to the office of their own. They were not the employees of the petitioner. No appointment letter was issued to them. All employees of the petitioner were covered under epf and ESI. Regular inspection of the petitioner's factory used to take place by Labour Authorities and regular attendance of all the employees used to be marked. Both the respondents were merely contract employees who were engaged for cleaning of the floors. There was no termination of their services.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that even if the employees were part-time employees and were working as sweepers they were 'workmen' within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They were not obliged to work for the whole day in order to become a 'workman'. Their services were terminated without following the procedure under Section 25-F, therefore, the termination was illegal. Assuming the workmen had absented from the duty without any intimation. the management was supposed to conduct a departmental enquiry against the employees. Since, no enquiry was conducted the abandonment of services could not be infered. The Tribunal, directed reinstatement with 50% back wages.

( 5 ) IT is now settled law that even if the termination of a person is held illegal, the Labour Court is not supposed to direct reinstatement along with full back wages and the relief can be moulded according to facts and circumstances of each case. The Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and take into account the allegations made by the work-women, the nature of contribution by the work-women to the industry, the time gap and averments made about the unemployment and proof of unemployment as the relevant factors to be considered in such cases. The Labour Court can allow compensation to a workman instead of reinstatement and back wages. Undisputably, both the work-women were considered as part-time employees by the Tribunal. Both were working for two hours per day for cleaning and sweeping of floors. Obviously, the rest of the time of the day was being utilized by the work-women for similar work at other places. They could not be said to be unemployed in the sense as of a full time worker is rendered unemployed. In 2005 (2) SCC 363 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another v. S. C. Sharma, Supreme Court observed as under:

"when the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back wages is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed. The initial burden is on him. After and if he places materials in that regard, the employer can bring on record materials to rebut the claim. In the instant case, the respondent had neither pleaded nor placed any material in that regard. "

( 6 ) IN Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai 2005 SCC (Lands)631, the Supreme Court held that in the event of order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document