RAMSARANSINGH BABULAL Vs. GENERAL MANAGER (E)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Each of the petitioners, being aggrieved by the award dated 28th June, 1999 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) Nos.4, 5 and 6 of 1993, is before this Court with a submission that the learned Tribunal was absolutely unjustified in not granting the back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.

(2.) Shri Vora, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were accepted as temporary employees and without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, their services came to be terminated on 20th June, 1986. He submits that the order of termination/illegal retrenchment came to be challenged before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal and after finding that the petitions before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal would not be maintainable, the same were withdrawn and the dispute was raised before the appropriate Government. He submits that the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Industrial Tribunal on 28th December, 1992. According to him, the back-wages should always follow the reinstatement unless there are strong reasons for rejection of the relief.

(3.) Shri Mukesh Patel, learned Counsel for the respondents, fairly submits that the relief of reinstatement was challenged by the respondents before this Court, but, all the Writ Applications came to be dismissed, therefore, the question of reinstatement is not in issue. He, however, submits that the learned Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to award or reject the prayer for grant of the back-wages. He submits that unless the Court holds that the discretion was illegally exercised in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court should not interfere.