The Labour Court has jurisdiction under Sec.33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to determine the amount of back wages due to a workman, even though the Labour Court had not specifically granted back wages in its award.

A. P. Chowdhari, J.

1. This writ petition raises an important question of law, namely, where termination of the service of the workman is held to be void ab initio under Sec.10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whether it is within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to determine the amount of money due or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act.

2. In order to appreciate the question, the facts of the case may be stated thus: The petitioner was appointed chowkidar on daily wages in the Haryana Roadways Depot, Kaithal, on 8th December, 1976. He was paid wages on monthly basis at the rate of Rs.325 per month. He continued working without any break till 9th June, 1982. His services were then terminated by order dated 10th June, 1982. The management did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Sec.25-F (a) and 25-F (b) of the Act. The workman served a demand notice, Annexure P-1a, dated 28th July, 1982, on the management. On a reference by the State Government, the dispute was entrusted to the Labour Court, Faridabad, which was later on transferred to the Labour Court, Ambala. The workman filed his claim statement, Annexure P-1. The management filed written statement, Annexure P-2. The workman filed his rejoinder, Annexure P-3. By award dated 25th November, 1985, Annexure P-4, the Labour Court, Ambala, held that the petitioner remained in service of the respondent for more than 240 days and at the time of termination of his services he was neither given any notice nor retrenchment compensation. It was further held that the provisions of Sec.25-F (a) and 25-F (b) of the Act were mandatory and, therefore, the order of termination was illegal and did not bind the petitioner. The order of termination was accordingly set aside. In compliance with the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages as helper/chowkidar by the respondent, vide order dated 20th March, 1986, Annexure P-5. In the order of appointment there was no reference to payment of back wages. The petitioner then made an application under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act to the Labour Court, Ambala, claiming Rs.21,456 on account of arrears of wages from 10th June, 1982 to 23rd March 1986, including Rs.1,000 as costs. Copy of the application under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act is Annexure P-6. The application was contested by the management and by order, Annexure P-7, dated 4th February, 1987, the application was dismissed by the Labour Court. In the present petition, the workman has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the application under Sec.33-C (2) of the Act. The petitioner has prayed that the order of the Labour Court, Annexure P-7, dated 4th February, 1987, be quashed; that he may be paid back wages for the period already mentioned and that his services may be regularised, especially as two persons, Pokhar Singh, Chowkidar, and Sher Singh, gunman, who were recruited after the petitioners appointment had been made permanent.

3. In the return, the facts set out above are not disputed. The only plea is that the back wages were not paid as there was no order to this effect in the award of the Labour Court. With regard to regularisation, it was stated that only persons recruited through approved sources were regularised and as the petitioner had been appointed directly on daily wages, his services could not be regularised. It was also stated in the return that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for the grant of back wages inasmuch as he failed to lead any evidence and, therefore, the Labour Court did not grant him the said relief of payment of back wages. Reference to the award dated 25th November, 1985, where-by termination of the service of the petitioner was declared illegal, shows that the petitioner had claimed full back wages besides reinstatement in service. In fact, the reference made t