@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Arun Tandon, J.@mdashIn compliance to the order passed by this Court on 7th September, 2010, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has informed the counsel appearing for the Respondent-workman in writing that the case would be heard today. A copy of the letter duly received is taken on record. Nobody is present on behalf of the Respondent-workman.
2. Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-employers.
3. Employers before this Court seek quashing of the award of the Labour Court, Bareilly dated 18th June, 1992, whereby the Labour Court has answered the reference in favor of the workman concerned and against the employers, it has been held that the termination of the services of the workman, namely, Harish Chandra Saxena w.e.f. 13th August, 1980 was illegal and that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
4. On behalf of the Petitioner award is being challenged before this Court basically on the ground, that M/s. Hind Cycles Limited. Ghaziabad of which the workman was an employee, had been acquired by the Central Government under the (The) Hind Cycles Limited and Sen-Raleigh Limited (Nationalization) Act. 1980 (Act No. 70 of 1980, which came into force w.e.f. 27th December, 1980). It is further stated that dispute was raised by the workman only in the year 1986 by making a conciliation application which was ultimately referred for adjudication to the Labour Court under the notification of the State Government dated 22nd September, 1986. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the relevant date, Central Government alone was the concerned Government for the reference being made and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would apply for the purpose. Reliance has been placed upon the definition of the Government as contained in Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. On merits also it is contended that the services of the workman were put to end after following the procedure prescribed after the charges were found proved.
5. Lastly, it is contended that even if the labour court had come to the conclusion that the services of the workman had been illegally terminated, there can have no direction for reinstatement with full back wages from the date of termination for two reasons:
(a) workman raised the dispute after 6 years subsequent to his termination, and ;
(b) there was absolutely no pleading before the labour court nor any evidence was led for establishing that the workman was not gainfully employed during the period, he was out of employment.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and I have examined the records of the present writ petition.
7. Normally this Court would have entered into the issue as to whether in the facts of the present case, reference made by the State Government was competent or not. However, such exercise is not being undertaken by this Court for two reasons, (a) no such plea was raised by the Petitioner-employers before the labour court. If such plea would have been raised, the matter would have been examined and findings would have been recorded, (b) under the interim order granted by this Court dated 27th August, 1992, the workman was directed to be reinstated. However, payment of back wages was stayed. 18 years have elapsed. According to the Petitioner interim order was complied with and the workman was reinstated. In such circumstances, this Court feels that interest of substantial justice would be served by not entering into the issue as to whether reference itself was competent or not. In the aforesaid background, the Court rejects the first contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner.
8. So far as the finding recorded by the labour court qua order of termination being illegal, is concerned, this Court finds that the said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal or based on no evidence. The second contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is therefore, rejected.
9. This leads the Court to the last issue of payment of back wages raised on behalf of the Petitioner. From the records it is established that the services of the workman were terminated as early as on 13th August, 1980 and reference was made in the year 1986. For the intervening period, there was absolutely no allegation that he was not gainfully employed during all these period. Similarly, qua the back wages for the period commencing from the date of reference, there was no case set up by the workman. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
10. The facts of this case are worse. The reference itself was made in 1986. At least for this period of six years (i.e., 1980 to 1986) the workman is not entitled to any back wages. So far as the period between 1986 to 1992, i.e., for the period commenced from the date of reference till the date of reinstatement in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 27th August, 1992, is concerned, this Court would rather follow the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. (supra) and would modify the award of the labour court dated 18th June, 1992 to the extent that the workman would be entitled to only 25% of the back wages for the period commencing from the date of reference till the date of reinstatement in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 27th August, 1992. It is ordered accordingly. This amount shall be paid by the Petitioner to the workman within three months from today.
The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
