Back
2006 Supreme(All) 502
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bharati Sapru, J.
U.P.State Electricity Board through the Executive Engineer, Electricity
Versus
Brahm Singh, Lattar Singh, Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II)
Civil Misc.Writ Petition 1006 of 1992
Decided On : 17 February 2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1006 Of 1992
J.N.MAURYA, Ranjit Saxena, SHYAM NARAIN,
The discretionary nature of granting back wages and the need for proper consideration based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 6-N, Section 4-K, Rule 12(4) and (5), Rule 16(2), Rule 19a - The court discussed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly Section 6-N and Section 4-K, and the rules related to the conduct of hearings and issuance of summons. The court also referred to relevant case law to determine the entitlement of back wages and the discretionary nature of granting such relief.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent workman claimed wrongful termination and sought reinstatement with back wages. The petitioner corporation failed to reinstate the workman despite an award in his favor. The court found that the petitioner corporation had knowledge of the industrial dispute and had opportunities to contest the case but chose not to do so.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court granted adequate opportunity to the petitioner corporation to contest the case, and the petitioner corporation chose not to participate. The court also held that no back wages shall be paid to the workman, modifying the award of the Labour Court.
Issues: Delay in filing the reference, knowledge of the industrial dispute, failure to participate in the proceedings, and entitlement to back wages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the grant of back wages is a discretionary relief and must be considered based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. It also highlighted the burden on the employee to show that he was not gainfully employed and the need for proper consideration before granting back wages.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, and no back wages were to be paid to the workman, while the award of reinstatement was upheld.
( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ranjit Saxena and learned Counsel for the respondent workman Sri Shyam Narain at length.
( 2 ) THE present writ petition has been filed against an award of the Labour court dated 8. 7. 1991 published on 30. 9. 1991 in adjudication case no. 10 of 1991, by which the respondent workman has been reinstated with back wages. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner and an interim order was passed on 28. 1. 1992, which is quoted hereinbelow: issue notice. Meanwhile the payment of back wages till the date of award are hereby stayed.
( 3 ) INTERIM order passed on 28. 1. 1992 was discharged by way of order dated 9. 9. 2002. Thereafter a recovery was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner obtained a stay of the recovery of this Court on 28. 4. 2005.
( 4 ) DURING the interregnum i. e. between the period 22. 2. 2003 to 4. 8. 2004 the respondent workman worked again. This is stated in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 4/6. 4. 2005 to which no reply has been filed by the petitioner. Therefore it is admitted to parties that the respondent workman had worked between the period from 22. 2. 2003 to 4. 8. 2004. The respondent workman has also stated in para 3 of the said affidavit that he was paid salary at the rate of Rs. 2130. 54 per month.
( 5 ) WHEN the first stay order was passed, the back wages that had become payable to the respondent workman under the award had been stayed but reinstatement had not been stayed. Petitioner corporation however did not reinstate the respondent workman from the year 1992 to the year 2002 and even though this benefit was granted under the award. It deprived the workman on the basis of its unequal strength and did not allow the workman to be reinstated.
( 6 ) THE facts of the case are that the respondent workman claimed that he was working with the petitioner corporation as casual labourer from the year 1973 onwards and had been wrongly terminated w. e. f. 1. 10. 1974 in. violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act, as he had completed 240 days of service before the date of termination. The matter was sent for conciliation but conciliation failed. During the course of conciliation, the petitioner corporation raised an objection that the workman had been terminated in the year 1974 but he was raising his claim in the year 1989 and therefore the dispute was being raised belatedly. The conciliation officer, while hearing the conciliation case, passed an order which is appended as annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit by which he condoned the delay in filing the industrial dispute that the respondent workman had given a plausible explanation for the delay.
( 7 ) THUS, it is clear that the petitioner was aware of the fact that there was a dispute raised by the respondent workman, which he was agitating and the petitioner corporation had duly participated in C. B. case no. 52 of 1969. But the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Labour court for making reference under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was made in the year 1971 which reads as under: kya SEVAYOJKO DWRA APNE SHRAMIK BRAHM SINGH SON OF LATUR SINGH KO dinank 1. 10. 74 SE KAYA SE PRATHAK/vanchit RAKHNA ANUCHIT tatha/athwa AVAIDHANIK HAI, YADI HA, TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA lab/anutosh (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN sahit.
( 8 ) WHEN the matter was initiated before the Labour Court, it was received before the Labour court on 7. 2. 1991, which fixed 23. 3. 1991 as the date for filing the written statement before the labour Court. On 23. 3. 1991 the workman filed his written statement but the summons sent to the petitioner corporation by registered post were returned. The next date fixed was 1. 5. 1991. The workman prayed that the employer be served at the new address. The order-sheet, which is on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, records that on 1. 5. 1991 regi
