CHHAGANBHAI DHULABHAI VANKAR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Shukla for the petitioner and Mr. N.D. Gohil, the learned AGP for the respondents. In this petition, the petitioner workman has challenged the award made by the labour court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 270 of 1985 dated 16th June, 1994 in so far as it relates to refusal of 50 per cent of back wages for the intervening period. Under the impugned award, the labour court has partly allowed the reference of the petitioner workman and has ordered the respondent - first party to reinstate the petitioner workman with 50 per cent of the back wages for the intervening period with cost quantified at Rs.250.00 by the labour court.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Shukla appearing for the petitioner workman has submitted that the labour court has committed an error in denying 50 per cent of the back wages for the intervening period. He also submitted that the labour court has erred in raising presumption though there was no evidence to that effect. He also submitted that the labour court has erred in inferring that the workman must not have remained completely unemployed in these hard days and he must have earned an amount of Rs.200.00 to Rs.250.00 by doing miscellaneous labour work. He submitted that such an inference was drawn by the labour court in absence of any evidence to that effect and in doing so, the labour court has erred. It was his submission that once the labour court has set aside the order of termination, labour court has to grant the back wages as a normal consequence of reinstatement and, therefore, to that extent, the award made by the labour court is required to be modified by awarding full back wages to the petitioner workman.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Asstt. G.P. Mr.N.D.Gohil appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that these are the discretionary powers of the labour court to award back wages while granting reinstatement in favour of the workman. He also submitted that the question of back wages would depend upon various aspects and such aspects as well as facts and circumstances of each case. According to him, it is not rule that in each and every case, back wages has to be granted as a normal rule while setting aside the order of termination or dismissal as the case may be. According to him, the reasons assigned by the labour court for not awarding full back wages and for awarding only 50 per cent back wages for the intervening period are cogent and convincing because the inference or the presumption drawn by the labour court for refusing 50 per cent back wages is based on the principle that a person would not survive without doing anything; for surviving in these hard days, he must have done something and must have earned something and in view of that, the award in question is quite just, proper and valid award and, therefore, this court should not exercise the extra ordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the reinstatement was granted by the labour court while exercising the powers under section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in exercise of the powers under section 11-A of the ID Act, the labour court has ordered reinstatement with 50 per cent of the back wages for the intervening period and, therefore, this court may not interfere with such findings. According to him, the findings recorded by the labour court are not perverse and, therefore, this court may not interfere with the same.