BALDEV SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5403 of 1983 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the award made by the Labour Court, Patiala on April 29, 1982, whereby the Labour Court though directed for the reinstatement of the petitioner refused to grant back wages.

(2.) Briefly stated the petitioner was in the service of Punjab Roadways, Moga District, Faridcot (Punjab State) as a driver. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for failing to discharge his duties as a driver properly in as much as he caused damage to the Punjab Roadways to the extent of Rs. 22.50 by not taking the bus No. 5803 of which he was the driver on 14th November, 1977 from Bhatinda to Nihal-Singh-Wala via Moga, but rather took back the bus from Jawahar-Singh-Wala. Enquiry was held and he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. The service of the respondent was terminated on 27-6-1979. The Labour Commissioner referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Patiala under Sec. 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, Patiala after hearing both the parties and on a consideration of the facts and circumstances came to the finding that the respondent held fair and proper enquiry against the workman and the workman could not show that the enquiry was not fair and proper. The Labour Court also found that the punishment awarded was harsh being not in consonance with the nature of the charges against the workman and as such found that a lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. The Labour Court therefore found that the order of dismissal was a serious step taken by the respondent management. The charges against the workman were of minor nature. As a result he held that the order of termination of the service of the workman was not justified. The Labour Court therefore held that, "The workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages........The period of forced idleness shall be treated as leave of the kind due and in case no leave is due as leave without pay. The reference stands disposed of accordingly."

(3.) This order has been impeached by the petitioner by a Writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 5403 of 1983, on the ground that the order of Labour Court was wrong as though he was held to be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, yet without assigning any reason the back wages during the period of wrongful termination was refused to the petitioner in derogation of the terms of the provisions of Sec. 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been submitted therein that in similar cases and in similar circumstances this Court while disposing of four special leave petitions directed payment of one half of the back wages, during the period the appellants were kept out of employment. It has been, therefore, claimed that the order of the Tribunal is illegal and bad and the same needs to be modified by directing payment of back wages for the period of his absence from service due to the said order of termination.