SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal under the Letters Patent has been filed by the workman, – Shri Babu Ram Sagar, impugning the decision of a Single Judge of this Court whereby that Court has declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to interfere with the order of the labour court in I.D. No. 328 of 1992 decided on 29th August, 1995. By that order, the learned labour court had concluded that even though the Management had failed to prove the allegations against Shri Babu Ram Sagar, nevertheless, it was clear that the Management had lost confidence in him. Under the circumstances, the labour court felt that since Shri Babu Ram Sagar was employed as a chowkidar of the office, it would not be conducive to the proper functioning of the Management to direct his reinstatement. Another reason for declining the request to direct reinstatement was that more than three years had elapsed since the termination of the appellant’s services. Upto the time his services were terminated the appellant had admittedly put in a little less than four years of his service. At that time, his salary was Rs. 762/- plus other allowances. In other words, apart from allowances, his annual salary was Rs. 9,144/- and over the period he remained in employment, he had earned salary of approximately Rs. 37,000/-. Under these circumstances, the labour court had directed payment of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the appellant/workman.

2. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant challenged the same before Single Judge of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the impugned award be quashed and he be granted reinstatement with full back wages. Learned Single Judge of this Court has gone through the record and has noted the surrounding circumstances under which the services of the petitioner came to be terminated as also the allegation of the Management that they suspected that the appellant had not been doing his duty as a chowkidar faithfully. After going into the matter, the learned Single Judge was of the view that since the labour court has concluded that no satisfactory evidence was produced to support the plea of the Management that the petitioner was disrespectful and disobedient, therefore, the conclusion of the labor court that there is a clear case of loss of confidence by the Management in their employee is erroneous and cannot be sustained. However, despite that conclusion, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the final decision of the labor court for the following reasons:

“a) the services of the petitioner were terminated on 6.11.1991 i.e. more than 14 years ago, though dispute raised by him was adjudicated upon and award was passed on 29.8.1995 i.e. about four years after his termination.

a) relief of reinstatement was not granted by the labor court and more than 10 years have been passed since then; and

b) it is unbelievable that the petitioner was remained unemployed during all this period.”

In that view of the matter, and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai and another (2005) 5 SCC 124, learned Single Judge has also concluded that onus is on the appellant/workman to prove that he remained unemployed. Since he is working as a chowkidar i.e. a class-IV employee, it was highly improbable that he would not have got an alternative job in the last fourteen years. In the Allahabad Jal Sansthan case (supra), it was held that for appropriate relief to be granted in cases where the termination of services of a workman is held to be illegal, it was necessary to develop a pragmatic approach to this issue and grant him appropriate relief whether by way of reinstatement or back wages as also with regard to the question of quantification of the back wages. In such cases, the interests of both labour and Management should be balanced and that no law in absolute terms can be laid down. In that case, th