THANKUR SINGH RAWAT Vs. JAGJIT INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Order of Writ Court dated 28th January, 2003 upholding the view of the Labour Court that the appellants were not entitled to back wages. The appellants were 'Peons' in the office of respondent No. 1 Jagjit Industries Limited. Their services were terminated on 11th December, 1993. They raised an Industrial Dispute which was eventually referred to the Labour Court vide Reference Order dated 27th October, 1995. The Labour Court held vide its Award dated 28th November, 2000, that the termination of their services was illegal. The Labour Court directed that the appellants be reinstated in service. However, back wages were denied on the ground that no avernments were made in the statement of claim filed by the appellants to the effect that they were unemployed. Further, there was also no statement to this effect in the evidence. The Labour Court took into consideration the plea of the management that neither in the statement of claim nor in the affidavit filed by the three appellants, there was any averments that the appellants were unemployed during the period after their termination and till passing of the Award. On behalf of the appellants/workmen, it was submitted before the Labour Court that since the termination was illegal they were entitled to be reinstated with full back wages irrespective of the fact that they have failed to plead or state that they were not gainfully employed. The Labour Court after going through the law cited before it came to the conclusion that the workmen had not asserted the fact that they were unemployed and thus there was no occasion for the management to deny and prove that the workers were gainfully employed and therefore the workmen were not entitled to back wages.

(2.) Before proceeding further, it is necessary to identify the controversy involved in this case. The claim of the workmen was that their demand for full back wages has to be allowed irrespective of the fact that they have not pleaded or proved the fact of their unemployment. The judgment of the Labour Court to the extent it deals with the question of back wages has been reproduced by the learned writ Court in its entirety. The writ Court has accepted the entire judgment and has refused to interfere with it. Certain portions of the judgment of Labour Court are required to be extracted in order to understand the nature of controversy involved in this case. The judgment of the Labour Court dated 28.11.2001 says as under:

(3.) The stand of the workmen/appellants did not change even when the learned writ Court was hearing the matter. This is clear from paragraph 4 of the judgment of the learned writ Court which is as under: