SRI PUTTASWAMY CHARI Vs. MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 10.07.2012 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum-Labour Court ('CGIT' for short) in C.R.No.34/2003. The said award is assailed in the instant petition only insofar as the CGIT denying the back wages to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner alleging that his termination was not justified was before the CGIT by raising a dispute. At the first instance, the CGIT through the award dated 01.08.2006 had directed reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits including back wages. Assailing the said award, the respondent herein was before this Court in W.P.No.17098/2006. This Court through the order dated 07.03.2007 had allowed the writ petition, set aside the award dated 01.08.2006 and remitted the matter to the CGIT to reconsider afresh. Pursuant thereto, the CGIT having reconsidered the matter has passed the present award dated 10.07.2012. The CGIT though has granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, the back wages has been denied to the petitioner. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that the CGIT was not justified in denying the back wages would contend that at the first instance, when the CGIT had arrived at the conclusion that the entire relief is to be granted, the same could not have been denied in the present circumstance. It is also contended that the delay as taken note by the CGIT to deny the back wages would not be justified. In that light, it is contended that, when the CGIT has arrived at the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner was not justified, the natural consequence ought to have been to grant back wages as well, when the respondent-Management has not tendered any evidence before the CGIT to indicate that the petitioner was gainfully employed during the said period. In that light, it is contended that the award passed by the CGIT calls for modification and the back wages is to be granted to the petitioner.