SILCOORIE TEA ESTATE Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite notice.

(2.) The award dated December 29, 1997 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in Reference Case No.21 of 1992 to the extent of directing the garden authority/the petitioner to give all the back wages alongwith extra Re.1/- per day to the workman represented by the Respondent No. 1, is the subject matter of challenge in this Civil Rule.

(3.) Referring to the term of reference "Whether the Management of Silcoorie Tea Estate are justified in demoting Sri Ibrahim Ali from Carpenter's work and withdrawing the daily extra payment of Rupee one which he was allowed so long and if not, what relief is the said workman entitled to", Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of record and acted without jurisdiction in acting beyond the terms of reference by directing the petitioner to pay the back wages. It is stated that admittedly the workman's case was neither a dismissal nor removal one but was only an allegation and demand. According to him, the direction for payment of back wages can only be given in case of reinstatement when the termination or removal of the workman is held to be illegal. In support of his contention, Mr. Choudhury has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in case of Hindustan Tin Works Limited v. Its Employees reported in AIR 1979 SC 75 : 1979 (2) SCC 80 : 1978-II-LLJ-474 wherein the Apex Court held that if the workmen were ready to work but kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the employer, in that case only awarding a full back wages is permissible. In the instant case, as per own admission of the workman, as evident from the evidence on record, it appears that the workman himself deposed that he was not dismissed but he did not work as he was not given the work of carpentry.