JAFRI LUIS Vs. S D KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In reference (I.D.A.) No. 111 of 1981, the learned Labour Judge presiding over Sixth Labour Court, Bombay, adjudicated upon the demand of the petitioner-workman with regard to his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services. By this Award dated 22nd January, 1985 the learned Labour Judge granted relief to the petitioner of reinstatement with continuity of services. However, as regards the back wages he directed the second respondent company to pay six months back wages to the petitioner - workman. The petitioner workman here in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity, legality and propriety of the said Award to the extent of denying to him full back wages and granting the same only to the extent of six months.

(2.) Mr. Puri, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - workman, took me through the record as to the roznamas recorded by the learned trial Judge and pointed out that the reasoning of the learned Labour Judge that the matter could not be decided in time as both the parties had sought adjournment is factually incorrect in as much as the petitioner - workman had in the Labour Court obtained adjournments only on there occasions whereas the employer-company had sought adjournments on as many as 17 occasions. This part of the record further shows that the matter had to be adjourned on 25 occasions by the trial Court on its own. Mr. Puri, therefore, submits that the workman should not be penalised for delay in the disposal of the matter which is an inevitable consequence of the system in which we are working. On the other hand Mrs. Mahtre, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the second respondent-company, submits that the Company cannot be penalised for the delay caused on account of the Court being required to adjourn the matter. In support of her contention. Mrs. Mahtre pointed out a decision of the Supreme Court in (Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. The Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and others) A.I.R. 978 S.C. 311.

(3.) Now, the observations made by the learned Labour Judge for granting only six months back wages to the petitioner-workman are as under: