EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MUKUND ASHOKRAO SHEWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition challenges the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nashik, dated 20.1.1997 in Reference (IDA) No.81 of 1993. The respondent workman was employed as a Muster Assistant with effect from 5.5.1983. He had completed more than 240 days in service when his services were terminated with effect from 6.10.1986. No charge-sheet was issued nor was any enquiry held against the workman. The workman being aggrieved by the decision of the petitioner, sought a reference for adjudication of his dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nashik by Reference (IDA) No.81 of 1993.

(2.) THE parties filed their respective pleadings before the Court. The main contention of the petitioner was that the workman was employed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme which was not an industry and, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable. The Labour Court by its Award Part-I has held that the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. The submission of the petitioner that it is not an industry has been negated by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has held that the termination of service of the workman was illegal and, therefore, has granted reinstatement in service with continuity. As regards the back wages, the Labour Court has observed that the workman had approached the Court after a delay of seven years and has, therefore, denied him back wages for that period. The Labour Court has granted full back wages w.e.f. 15.7.1992 i.e. the date when the demand was raised till the realization.

(3.) THUS, there is no dispute that the workman has been reinstated in service continuity by the petitioners. The only question which now remains to be considered is whether the back wages which have been awarded are justified. The learned A.G.P. submitted that the petitioners ought not to be saddled with the back wages as the workman had sought a reference about seven years after his services were terminated. He submits that no explanation has been given by the workman for setting in motion the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act for obtaining a reference. He, therefore, submits that the amount of back wages as awarded should be set aside.