ISHWARI PRASAD SHUKLA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who was workman working in the factory of respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the employer), was removed from service with effect from 22-12-1975. A dispute in connection with petitioner's removal from service was referred by the Government to the Labour Court-IV, Kanpur. The Labour Court by its Award dated 12-2-1980, published on 11-3-1980, has held the removal of the petitioner from service by the employer as illegal and has directed his reinstatement. But the back wages with effect from 22-12-1975 to the date of reinstatement have not been awarded. The back wages have been refused to the petitioner on the ground that during the period of forced idleness, from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement, the petitioner has not made any attempt for getting employment and thus has failed to reduce the financial burden of the employer is against that part of the Award where by the petitioner has been denied the back wages, that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE impugned part of the Award, denying the back wages to the petitioner, cannot be sustained. Where the service of the workman has been illegally terminated by the employer, the workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages, except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the period he remained out of job. THEre is no obligation on the workman to search for or get a job during the period of forced idleness so as to reduce financial burden of the employer. In case removal from service of the workman is found illegal by the Labour Court the workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and the burden is on the party objecting to it to establish the circumstances necessitating the departure from the ordinary rule of re-instatement with full back wages. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Hindustan Tin Works v. Its Employees, AIR 1979 SC 75, where in the Supreme Court laid down as follows :