An employee exonerated of misconduct is entitled to back wages as the normal rule; courts may reduce but not deny without reasons. Here, 50% back wages awarded.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)

The workman, who was a Conductor, was levelled with the charge that he had not issued tickets for 15 passengers and had 1.5 paisa of excess cash in his bag. The charge was held to be proved in the domestic inquiry and the Disciplinary Authority had dismissed him from service on 07.05.2001. When the workman challenged the order of punishment before the Labour Court, Cuddalore (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”) in I.D.No.27 of 2002, the Labour Court rendered a preliminary Award, holding that the enquiry was not done in a fair and proper manner. Consequently, fresh evidences were let in and based on the evidences before it, the Labour Court recorded that none of the charges against the workman were proved. Thus, by an Award dated 07.12.2011, the Industrial Dispute was partly allowed and the workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, but the back wages and other attendant benefits were denied. Both the workman and the Management had challenged the Award before the Writ Court in W.P.Nos.1750 of 2013 and 23029 of 2012 respectively. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dated 31.10.2022, dismissed both the Writ Petitions. The workman, as well as the Management, have challenged the said common order in these two Writ Appeals.

2.By virtue of the powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court would be well within its powers to let in fresh evidences, when a conclusion is arrived that the domestic inquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. In the instant case also, the Labour Court, after finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper, had let in fresh evidence, wherein the Management had marked 12 documents, Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.12 and examined three witnesses, M.W.1 to M.W.3. On the side of the workman, four witnesses. including the workman, namely W.W.1 to W.W.4, were examined.

3.In the Award dated 07.12.2011, the Labour Court had analyzed the evidences before it and in particular, after analyzing the oral evidences of W.W.3 and W.W.4, had come to the conclusion that the charge that the workman did not issue tickets cannot be said to have been true. In this background, the Labour Court had set aside the dismissal order and ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service for the purpose of calculation of gratuity.

4.For denying the back wages and other attendant benefits, reliance was placed on the decisions in Kanhaiyalal Agarwal Vs. The Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd., reported in 2001 LLR 1073 (SC); Trivandrum Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vs. R.Mohan Kumar and Another reported in 2002 LLR 182 (Ker. H.C.); Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai and Another reported in 2005 LLR 534 : JT 2005 (5) S.C. 113; U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd., Vs. V.Sarada Prasad Misra and Another reported in 2006 LLR 586 (SC); U.P. State Electricity Board, Muzhaffarnager Vs. Sr Brahm Singh and Another reported in 2006 LLR 944 (All. H.C.); and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Azamgarh Vs. Dinesh Kumar and Others reported in 2004 LLR 678 (All. H.C.).

5.A perusal of all the aforesaid decisions would only indicate that when an order of discharge from service is set aside and reinstatement is ordered, the backwages would only be a discretionary power and no straight jacket formula can be followed and such award of backwages would be based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Apart from referring to the aforesaid decisions, no independent discussion is recorded in the Award. However, the categorical finding of the Labour Court appears to be that the evidences before it demonstrate the dismissal order to be illegal.

6.In a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase V. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others reported in 2013 (10) SCC 324, the Supreme Court had referred to some of its own judgments and had culled out the propositions laid therein with regard to