Amareshwar Sahay, J.@mdashThe petitioner, Management of Steel Authority of India, Bokaro Steel Plant, by filing this writ petition has
challenged the Award dated 4.12.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, whereby the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the
workman with 35% back wages along with all other consequential benefits except the back wages for the period from 28.2.1989 to August 1990.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the workman S.D. Pandey was a Mazdoor and he joined the service of Bokaro Steel Plant on 2.6.1973
but he was always absenting from duty unauthorizedly right from 1976 till he was finally charge sheeted and dismissed from the service of the
Company after due and proper enquiry.
3. On the other hand, the case of the workman is that he is a displaced person, whose house, homestead and agricultural lands were acquired for
setting up the Bokaro Steel Plant. He was appointed under a scheme under which displaced persons were given appointment and accordingly, he
joined his service on 2.6.1973. In course of his service, he developed some disease, so he was forced to go on leave on medical advice and he
never absented from his service without prior sanction and information. He fell seriously ill on 21.2.1989 because of jaundice and then was
hospitalized for treatment. According to the petitioner, he had informed about his sickness by sending applications supported with medical
certificate to the Company. Further case of the workman is that the punishment of dismissal from the service is illegal and unjustified and in any
case is harsh and disproportionate to charge levelled against him not commensurate with gravity of the misconduct.
4. During pendency of this application, by filing an interlocutor application, a prayer was made on behalf of the workman that the Management be
directed to pay full back wages and current wages during the pendency of the writ petition as envisaged u/s 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. In
paragraph-6 of the said interlocutory application, the workman did specifically state that he was sitting idle since the date of his dismissal. By order
dated 10.8.2004, the said application u/s 17B of the I.D. Act tiled by the petitioner was allowed.
5. Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the concerned workman has already reached the age of
superannuation on 30.6.2005 during pendency of this writ petition and therefore, the question of his reinstatement in service cannot and does not
arise. He, however, submits that the direction of the Labour Court granting 35% of the back wages is not legal and valid since the onus was on the
workman to establish the fact that after he was dismissed from service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere, but the petitioner failed to
discharge the said onus.
6. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the concerned workman submitted that the findings of facts arrived at by the
Labour Court on the basis of the materials and evidence on record cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
since the writ of certiorari is a Supervisory Jurisdiction and in exercise of such jurisdiction only any error of law can be collected not any error of
facts howsoever grave it may be.
7. Considering the above facts as well as the rival submissions made by the parties, I am of the view that Mr. G.M. Mishra, has rightly submitted
that since the petitioner has now reached the age of his superannuation on 30.6.2005 during pendency of the writ petition and as such, now the
question for reinstatement of the workman has become infructuous.
8. So far as the question of payment of 35% of beck wages along with all consequential benefits as directed by the Labour Court is concerned, I
find that the Labour Court on the appreciation of the evidence and materials on record has come to a finding on facts and then has ordered for
payment of 35% of the back wages and this finding on consideration and on appreciation of facts and evidence on record cannot be interfered
with, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since as has been held in the case of Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.
Radhakrishnan and Others, wherein it has been held that the findings on facts arrived at by the Labour Court or the Tribunal cannot he questioned
by the High Court while exercising Supervisory powers. No jurisdictional error in the impugned order has been pointed out.
9. In view of the discussion and findings above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed but without
any costs. The award of the Labour Court regarding payment of back wages as aforesaid be implemented by the respondent-Management
forthwith within a period of eight weeks, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award till the date of actual
payment.
