(1.) THE first respondent -workman was appointed to the post of a driver in the transport department of the petitioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Nagarpalika. He was absent from duty without permission from 2.6.1980. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 5.8.1980 was issued to him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. However, he did not give any explanation. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Standing Committee of the petitioner and a decision was taken to terminate his services as it was presumed that he was not interested in the services of the petitioner as he had not replied to the show cause notice. The Standing Committee of the petitioner accordingly passed a Resolution on 4.9.1980 terminating the services of the first respondent effective from 20th June, 1980. Accordingly his services were terminated from that day.
(2.) THE first respondent raised an industrial dispute in the matter of termination of his services and for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. A Reference under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made in the matter of dispute raised by the first respondent to the Second Labour Court, Pune, being Reference (IDA) No. 222 of 1981. The learned Labour Judge of the Second Labour Court, Pune by the impugned Award dated November 5, 1984 held that the first respondent was not given proper opportunity to explain his case that he was ill and, therefore, he could not report for duty and as such the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the first respondent was not just, fair, proper and legal and accordingly directed the petitioner to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service.
(3.) NOW , at the Bar it is submitted that in pursuance of the Award made against it, the petitioner already reinstated the first respondent on February 5, 1986. The prayer of the petitioner is that the order of payment of full back wages to the first respondent is not just, fair and proper in view of the fact that the services of the first respondent came to be terminated merely because he failed to give satisfactory explanation to the show cause notice issued to him and, therefore the petitioner Nagarpalika should not be penalised with payment of full back wages of the first respondent for the intervening period. I find a lot of substance in this submission made on behalf of the petitioner -Nagarpalika because had the first respondent given satisfactory explanation to the show cause notice, his services perhaps would not have been terminated leading to the reference order and passing of the impugned Award. The first respondent here, therefore, was not free from total blame for whatever had happened. The payment of full back wages, in the facts and circumstances of this case, was not fully justified although the normal rule is that reinstatement should be followed by a further order of payment of full back wages. There are extenuating circumstances in this case, as pointed out above, that the first respondent was not free from giving rise to the unfortunate situation of termination of services and then Award of the Labour Court reinstating him with payment of full back wages and continuity of service. Therefore, regard being had to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be served if the petitioner is directed to pay 50 per cent of the back wages to the first respondent from the date of termination of his services on 20.6.1980 upto the date of his reinstatement on 5.2.1986. The impugned award passed by the learned Labour Judge is modified to that extent and the petitioner is directed to pay 50 per cent of the back wages to the first respondent from 20.6.1980 to 5.2.1986.