Entitlement to back wages is standard upon wrongful termination, subject to proof of unemployment; management's failure to regularize violated its own policies.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 03.07.2012 (published in the gazette on 19.07.2012) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad in Reference Case No.21 of 1998 and 31 of 1998 whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondents (hereinafter referred to as respondent workmen) with 75% back wages payable from the date of making reference, that is, 11.06.1998. A further direction has been issued to regularize them as watchmen in category-IV post with all consequential benefits within two months from the date of publication of the award. The terms of reference in Reference Case No. 21 of 1998 and in Reference Case No. 31 of 1998 which were decided by the common impugned award dated 03.07.2012 is quoted as under:

Terms of Reference in Reference Case No. 21 of 1998

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna in retrenching S/Sri Upendra Kumar and Ramesh Kumar w.e.f. 1.8.86 in contravention of Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and denying reinstatement with full back wages and regularisation of service as per H.Q. Circular dated 6.5.87 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

Terms of Reference in Reference Case No. 31 of 1998

"Whether the action of the management of FCI, Patna in retrenching S/Sh. Manoj Kumar, Saroj Kumar, Akhilesh Kumar, Arun Kumar and Arvind Singh w.e.f. 1.9.1986 in contravention of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947 and denying reinstatement with full back wages and regularisation of services as per H.Q. Circular dated 6.5.1987 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

2. Before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the management") produced one witness and proved the documents as Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-3 and the respondent workmen produced two witnesses who produced the documents – Exhibit W-1 to Exhibit W-21. Both the references were heard together as similar issues were involved. The learned Tribunal gave its conclusions in paragraph 9 of the award as under:

"9. In the result, I render the following award-

The action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna, in retrenching S/Sri Upendra Kumar and Ramesh Kumar of Reference No. 21 of 1998 and S/Sri Manoj Kumar, Saroj Kumar, Akhilesh Kumar, Arun Kumar and Arvind Singh of Reference No. 31 of 1998 w.e.f. 1.8.1986 and 1.9.1986 respectively, in contravention of Sec. 25-F of I.D. Act, 1947 and denying reinstatement with full back wages and regularisation of service as per H.Q. Circular dated 6.5.87 is not legal and justified.

In the circumstances of the case, I hold that the concerned workmen involved in Reference No. 21 of 1986 are entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. the date of their retrenchment i.e. 1.8.1986 and the concerned workmen involved in Reference No. 31 of 1986 are entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. the date of their retrenchment i.e. 1.9.1986. All the concerned workmen of both the reference cases are also entitled to be regularised as per H.Q. Circular dated 6.5.1987 (Ext. W-4) as Watchmen in Category-IV with 75% back wages from the date of reference i.e. 11.6.1998 and other consequential benefits. The management is directed to implement the award within two months from the date of publication of the award in the Gazette of India."

Arguments of the petitioner (management)

3. The learned counsel for the management has submitted that in this writ petition, common award passed in Reference Case No.21 of 1998 and Reference Case No.31 of 1998, has been challenged.

4. The learned counsel for the management submits that in Reference Case No.21 of 1998 there are two workmen, who are respondent nos.1 and 2, and in the other case, there are five workmen, who are respondent nos.3 to 7. He has also submitted that