THANGAL KUNJU Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Labour Court, Quilon, in an award passed in industrial Dispute No. 12 of 1982. found that the appellant was a workman, that he was denied employment from 14-2-1979 without any reason and without any notice and without any retrenchment compensation. It also found that the denial of employment amounted to retrenchment. However, while directing re-instatetment, the Labour Court stated thus: "as such I find that he is entitled to be reinstated in service under the opposite party. At the same time there is nothing in evidence to show that the petitioner has made any earnest efforts to secure an alternate employment so as to minimise his loss. In the circumstances I find that the claimant will be entitled to reinstatement in service with half back wages and continuity of service".

(2.) THE workman, the appellant, therefore filed the writ petition against this award, contending that having found that retrenchment was illegal, he was entitled to full back wages and that the reason given by the labour Court to restrict his claim to half back wages was clearly illegal. THE learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage. THE learned judge held thus: "it is in the discretion of the Labour Court in ordering reinstatement as to further direction should be given in a particular case. THE Labour Court has adverted to the matter and has held that the petitioner did not make any earnest efforts to secure an alternate employment so as to minimise his loss. I do not think that the approach made by the Labour Court is in any way erroneous or that the jurisdiction vested in the 1st respondent was exercised illegally or perversely. Ext. P1 is not open to any challenge. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226of the Constitution is not warranted. THE Original Petition is dismissed in limine. " It is against this judgment that this appeal has been filed.

(3.) APPLYING these principles, it is clear that the reason given by the Labour Court is untenable. No exceptional cases was pleaded or found in favour of the employer to deny the workman the full back wages which he was entitled to consequent on the direction for reinstatement after finding that the retrenchment was illegal. The Supreme Court has stressed that the relief of awarding of full back wages should be the ordinary rule and denial is only an exception. It has also stated that there is only a vestige of discretion left in the Labour Court to make consequential orders for depriving a workman, in such circumstances, his right to full back wages. The Labour court does not seem to have addressed the question with reference to the principles stated by the Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 422, In the circumstances, while upholding the order of the Labour Court that the retrenchment of the workmen was illegal and is violative of Art. 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act and that be is entitled to reinstatement and also upholding the direction that he is entitled to back wages, the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to consider whether the workman is not entitled to the full back wages. The Labour Court will consider the matter after hearing both sides and in case it decides that the workman is entitled to get full back wages, it will mould its reliefs after taking into consideration the fact that half back wages has already been granted and has become final also. The judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal is disposed of to the extent indicated above. Let photostat copy of this judgment be furnished to counsel appearing for the parties. Dismissed. . .