LexALLAHABAD JAL SANSTHAN versus DAYA SHANKAR RAI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ALLAHABAD JAL SANSTHAN A v. DAY A SHANK.AR RAI AND ANR. MAY 3, 2005 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B labour laws : Reinstatement of terminated employee-Award of full back wages- Entitlement to-On facts, Labour Court passing ex-parte award reinstating C · the terminated employee with full back wages-No evidence or plea that he remained unemployed during the period of termination-Held: In the interest of justice, he is entitled to 50% of the back wages only-U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 6-N. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Labour Court was right in passing an ex-parte award reinstating the terminated employee with full back wages in the absence of a plea or evidence that the employee remained unemployed during the period of termination. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court D E, HELD : I. A law in absolute term cannot be laid down as to in which cases, and under what circumstances, full back wages can be granted or denied. The Labour Court and/or Industrial Tribunal before which industrial dispute has been raised, would be entitled to grant the relief F having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Respondent No. I was appointed on an ad hoc basis; his services were terminated. He had not raised any plea in the written statement that he had been sitting idle or had not obtained any other employm'.!nt in the interregnum. Even in his evidence, he did not say that he continued to remain unemployed. G 2. With the passage of time, it is realized that industry is being compelled to pay the workman for a period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all, for a period that was spent unproductively, while the workman is being compelled to go back to a 1077 H 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. A situation which prevailed many years ago when he was dismissed. It is necessary to develop a pragmatic approach to problems dogging industrial relations. However, no just solution can be offered but the golden mean may be arrived at. (1082-F-Gl 3. In view of the fact that the Respondent no.I had been reinstated B in service and keeping in view the fact that he had not raised any plea or adduced any evidence to the effect that he remained unemployed throughout, the interest of justice would be sub-served if the Respondent no.I is directed to be paid so•" of the back wages. (1082-F-G; 1083-Al Ram Ashrey Singh Anr. v. Ram Bux Singh and Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 154; C Management of Mis. Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ajit Singh, (2005) 2 SCALE 151; Haryana State Coop. land Dev. Bank KNeelam, (2005) 2 SCALE 434 and Manager, R.B.l, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors., (2005) 3 SCALE 202, relied on. D Hindustan Motors Ltd v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Anr., (2002) 6 SCC 41; MP. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.), (2003( 6 SCC 141; Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr. v. Rahmat Ullah, (2003( 10 SCC 92; Workmen of Subong Tea Estate, represented by the Indian Tea Employees Union v. Outgoing Management ofSubong Tea Estate and Anr., AIR (1967) SC 420; Mis Hindustan Steel Ltd v. The Presiding Officer, labour Court, E Orissa and Ors., (19761 4 SCC 222; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd v. Ajay Kumar, JT (2003) 2 SC 295 and Nicks (India) Tools v. Ram Surat and Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 222, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8924 of2003. F From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.2003 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 6597 of 2001. Rajesh for the Appellant. Manoj Prasad and K.K. Srivastava for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. Whether the Respondent was entitled to be granted full back wages in the facts and circumstances of this case is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2.7.2003 passed H by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6597 of -- ' ALLAHABAD JAL SANSTHAN v. DA YA SHANKAR RAI [S.B. SINHA, J.] I 079 · 2001. The basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The Respondent herein was appointed purely on a temporary basis on or about 14.10.1985. A The appointment letter issued to the Respondent No. 1 stipulates that the said appointment could be terminated at any time without any prior notice. The services of the Respondent No. l and others were terminated by the State in B terms of an office order date
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.