CHAMANLAL KALSURAM LILAHARE Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for petitioner, although called out twice during the course of the day. As the petition pertains to the year 1995 and the record indicates that even in the past, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution but has been restored, hearing of this petition cannot be deferred any more and will have to be proceeded forthwith. Accordingly with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent No.1, I would proceed with the hearing of the petition.

(2.) Upon hearing learned counsel for the respondent No.1, it is noticed that the only issue that has been brought before this Court is about relief of back wages to the petitioner. The first Labour Court by its award dated 24th July 1995 passed in Reference IDA Case No. No. 198/ 1989 ordered reinstatement of the petitioner, but declined to grant relief of back wages.

(3.) The reason for declining that relief has been recorded in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment. The lower Court has taken into account the fact that the petitioner during his cross-examination, has admitted that after his termination he was working as Labour wherever work was available and was earning Rs. 400-/- per month. On this admission of the petitioner, the question of granting relief of back wages to the petitioner did not arise because, the original appointment of the petitioner was on consolidated salary of R. 300/- only and on temporary basis.