JAWAHARLAL GOPAL Vs. MEMBER JUDGE INDUSTRIAL COURT RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN spite of notice received by the respondent No. 2 on July 31, 2007, none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in the matter. Thus, this matter is being considered without hearing the respondent No. 2. The petitioner impugns the order dated january 21, 1999 passed by the Industrial court, Raipur in Appeal No. 521 /mpir Act/96, whereby the petitioner has been reinstated in service without back wages. The petitioner is challenging denial of back wages in this petition.

(2.) THE facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as Assistant with the respondent No. 2. His services were terminated on May 9, 1991. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 31 (3) of the then M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 in labour Court, Raipur. The Labour Court by order dated September 21, 1996 dismissed the application of the petitioner. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent failed to prove misconctuct in the enquiry and the termination order was passed against the petitioner only, when other persons were involved in the alleged misconduct i. e. , non-compliance of the transfer order. After having held that the termination order was bad on account of the fact, that misconduct was not proved. The Industrial court directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service without back wages by order dated 21. 1. 1999 (Annexure P-l ).

(3.) SHRI Kale, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the termination order has been found illegal, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages as the petitioner was restrained by illegal order of the respondent No. 2 from discharging his functioning. Learned Counsel would further submit that basic principle of grant of back wages is that if the petitioner has been deprived of salary by illegal order, the petitioner is entitled to 100% back wages. The Industrial court has not considered the fact as to whether the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere or not. The petitioner was not employed anywhere and has not earned any income during the period of termination. The petitioner has been reinstated in service, pursuant to the order dated January 21, 1999.