J N BHARDWAJ Vs. HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award of the Labour Court dated 13th June, 1989.

(2.) Mr. Vohra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the award on the ground that the Labour Court after coming to the conclusion that the termination by discharge of the petitioner was bad for non-compliance of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the said termination amounted to retrenchment, the Labour Court ought to have allowed reinstatement of the petitioner or in lieu of reinstatement ought to have awarded full back wages. In support of his arguments, Mr. Vohra has cited Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass, 1984 IFJ 60 and Punjab Land Dent. & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd., Chandigarh etc & Several Ors. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh etc. & Several Ors. (2) 1990 LLJ 70. What Mr.Vohra has contended before me is that if the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the action of the Management was bad for non-mpliance of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the finding of the Labour Court granting 50% wages as compensation in lieu of reinstatement was bad. Mr. Vohra has also contended that if the Management wanted to terminate the services of the workman on any other grounds then the Management would have taken recourse to other provisions and disciplinary proceedings in relation to the absence of the workman.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Dhawan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has argued that the contention raised by Mr. Vohra that once the termination is found to be bad the workman has to be reinstated and if, for any reason, he cannot be reinstated the normal rule is that he has to be given full back wages is not correct. The second submission, which has been made before me by Mr. Dhawan, is that this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court until and unless this Court comes to the conclusion that the award is manifestly bad on account of an error, which is apparent on the record or is otherwise perverse. Mr. Dhawan, in support of his contentions, has also cited Gursharan Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 1994 LAB.I.C.972 and Syed Azam Hussaini v. The Andhra Bank Ltd., JT 1995 (2) SC 37.