FLOOD CONTROL Vs. FOKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Petitioner impugns the award dated 4th July, 1997 whereby it was held that the services of the Respondent were terminated illegally and the Respondent was thus directed to be reinstated in service with back wages payable on the same basis on which he was being paid during the period of his employment with the Management and that too from the date of reference. When the matter came up for hearing on 12 th August, 1998 before this Court though the operation of the impugned award with respect to the back wages was stayed however, no stay in respect of reinstatement in service was granted. Thus the Respondent was reinstated in service on 9th October, 1998. During the course of the arguments learned counsel for the Petitioner did not challenge the award to the extent it directed reinstatement as the Respondent has already been reinstated and confined her arguments to the extent the award directs payment of full back wages.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was employed as daily wager on Muster Roll on 16th November, 1984 and he abandoned his work from 15th October, 1985. Thus he worked nearly for a period of 11 months. Belatedly a dispute was raised by the Respondent in the year 1989 on which a reference was sent vide order dated 19th April, 1990, whereupon the impugned award came to be passed on 4 th July, 1997. Relying on Ajaib Singh vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited and Another, AIR 1999 SC 1351, Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3004 and HMT vs. Labour Court, Ernakulam and others, LLR 1994 page 720 it is contended that even if the termination is found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages does not follow automatically. It is further contended that there was delay in raising the dispute of four years and thus the Respondent is not entitled to full back wages.

(3.) AS noted above the only issue raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is whether the Respondent is entitled to full back wages. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the Respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back wages which was to be payable on the same basis on which it was being paid during the period of employment with the Management and that too from the date of reference. Thus the impugned award takes care of the delay in raising the dispute and does not direct the Petitioner to pay full back wages from the date of termination but granted the same from the date of reference only.