The workman has no right to claim back wages as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favor and directed his reinstatement in service.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in ID No.349 of 2007 and quash its award dated 26.02.2013.)

1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 26.02.2013 passed in ID No.349 of 2007.

2. The petitioner was having a factory at Gummidipoondi for manufacture of grey iron casting. The 2nd respondent/workman was working as an Electrical Supervisor. Without assigning any reason, the 2nd respondent absent from attending work with effect from 10.12.2001. The 2nd respondent / workman claimed that he was denied employment by the writ petitioner / Management during the year 2001. On 27.02.2002, the 2nd respondent sent a letter to the petitioner/Management. The 2nd respondent/workman raised a dispute of denial of employment. However, the petitioner / Management submitted their reply by pointing out that the 2nd respondent / workman has not been denied employment, but he had taken up employment in M/s.Magnum Polymers at Gummidipoondi and consequently, was not reporting for work in the petitioner/Management.

3. After a lapse of about 4 years, the 2nd respondent / workman approached the State Legal Services Authority and challenged the denial of employment. Again, the petitioner / Management submitted its reply by pointing out that the Management had not denied employment and the 2nd respondent had taken up employment in another company.

4. The 2nd respondent raised an Industrial Dispute after a lapse of about 6 years from the alleged date of denial of employment before the Labour Court. The petitioner / Management contested the case and reiterated that the 2nd respondent was not been denied employment and he had taken up another employment in another company, namely, M/s. Magnum Polymers at Gummidipoondi. Without considering the factual aspects established by the petitioner / Management, the Labour Court passed the impugned award for reinstatement with 50% of backwages. Even after the award, the petitioner/ Management sent a letter on 08.11.2013, asking the 2nd respondent/workman to report for work. The 2nd respondent reported for duty and resigned from service within few days. Thus, the writ petitioner was constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the allegation regarding denial of employment by the 2nd respondent before the Labour Court all along that the writ petitioner / Management had contested the case by stating that at no circumstances, the employment was not denied to the 2nd respondent / workman, but he had taken up another employment in another company, namely, M/s. Magnum Polymers at Gummidipoondi. Pertinently, after passing the impugned award by the Labour Court, again the petitioner / Management directed the 2nd respondent to report for work. Though the 2nd respondent reported for work, he resigned from service after few days. Thus, the award of 50% of back-wages by the Labour Court is not in consonance with the established principles of law.

6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / workman objected the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner / management by stating that the denial of employment was raised as a dispute and the 2nd respondent approached the Labour Officer and was consistently following the matter. Thus, there was a delay in raising the Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, after denial of employment by the writ petitioner / management. Thus, the award of back-wages is proper and moreso, 50% of the back-wages alone has been ordered by the Labour Court and thus, there is no infirmity.

7. Considering the arguments as advanced between the parties to the lis on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the 2nd respondent was serving to the petitioner / Management as the Electrical Supervisor from the year, 1998. He served in the petitioner / Management hardly about 3 years. I