CHANDRAKANT V SHINDE Vs. SHAYAK SANCHALAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges award of the Labour Court dated 3-8-1995. The Labour Court has allowed the Reference (IDA) No. 241 of 1992 partly. However, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. The Labour Court has awarded back wages from 11-6-1985 to 18-2-1986.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that, the petitioner joined services with the respondent No. 1 on 21-2-1985. It appears that the petitioner was unwell and was under medical treatment for about five months. When he reported for duty after enjoying the leave on 11-6-1985, the petitioner was not permitted to resume duty. His services were terminated on 18-2-1986 with retrospective effect from 11-6-1985. The petitioner claims to have made several representations to respondent No. 1, the first one in 1986 and one in each year thereafter upto 1989. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute on 26-7-1990. It was referred for adjudication on 17-7-1992. Pleadings were completed by the parties. The petitioner examined himself and the respondent No. 1 led evidence of one V. N. Kshirsagar before the Labour Court. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court has held that the respondent No. 1 had committed an illegality by terminating the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect. The Labour Court however was of the view that since the petitioner had worked only for three and half months with the respondent No. 1, he was not entitled to be reinstated in service though the termination of service was illegal. The Labour Court has further granted the petitioner wages from 11-6-1985 i.e. the date on which the respondent No. 1 claims to have terminated the services of the petitioner till 18-2-1986 i.e. the date of termination.

(3.) Mr. Kulkarni for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has erred in not granting reinstatement to the petitioner after concluding that the termination of service was illegal. He submits that once the Labour Court had found that the termination of service was illegal, he ought to have directed the respondent No. 1 to reinstate the workman. He further submits that in any event the Labour Court ought to have granted back wages to the petitioner. The only reason for not granting either reinstatement or back wages, is that the Labour Court was of the opinion that the industrial dispute was raised belatedly by the workman. According to the learned advocate, the Labour Court ought to have granted back wages at least from the date the dispute was referred for adjudication till the Labour Court decided the reference.