PRABHAKANT SHUKLA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction amending the award dated 27th September, 2002 given by the Labour Court (3), Kanpur Nagar, respondent No. 1, filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition and other consequential reliefs. Vide award dated 27th September, 2002, the Labour Court has held the termination of the services of the petitioner to be illegal and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with effect from 12th June, 1987. However, it had not granted relief of back wages and had further directed the employer to reinstate within two months and the petitioner would be entitled for wages from the date of the award. The present petition challenges the award insofar as it denies the relief of backwages.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :" M/s. Reetu Marbals, respondent No. 2, is carrying on ;the business in marbles and other allied products at Kanpur. It had engaged the petitioner as Accountant on 1st March, 1986. From 11th June, 1987, it stopped taking work from the petitioner whereupon an industrial dispute was raised, which has been referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kanpur. The State Government had referred the following dispute for adjudication

(3.) The reference was registered as Adjudication Case No. 92 of 1989, Before the Labour Court, the petitioner as also the respondent No. 2 filed their written statement, Prabhakant Shukla and R.K. Tripathi on behalf of the petitioner gave their oral evidence, however, on behalf of the employer-respondent No. 2, Rakesh Kumar Bajpai. Clerk, gave his oral statement. Before the Labour Court, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that he had been appointed as Accountant in the establishment of the respondent No. 2 on 1st March, 1986 and was getting Rs. 1,200.00/- p.m. as wages. He worked continuously till 10th June, 1987 and from 11th June. 1987 he had been stopped from doing the work. The case set up by the employer before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was not a full time employee but only a part time employee and therefore, he is not entitled to raise any industrial dispute. The Labour Court after examining the evidence and material on record, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a full time employee of the respondent No. 2 and that his termination was illegal and contrary to law. The petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. However, it has not given the relief of back wages. It may be mentioned here that the respondent No. 2 had accepted the award.