ZULFIKAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workman is before this Court in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The Labour Court vide its Award dated March 29, 2010 has ordered reinstatement in service but with 10% back wages. Costs have been ordered and assessed at Rs. 2000.00. The petitioner claims that the Award deserves to be modified to the extent of grant of back wages and he should in fact be granted full back wages.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Cooperative Society on April 6, 1998 and his services were terminated on August 24, 2001 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). It is also established on evidence and accepted by the Labour Court that the petitioner had rendered services of more than 240 days continuously with the respondent preceding the date of termination. In defence of the action, the management before the Labour Court took the plea that the appointment as a workman was not proper as the workman was resident of a place which fell outside the revenue jurisdiction of the respondent-Society. The Labour Court has found this plea untenable on the short ground that the management failed to bring any material on record to show that there were any rules of the respondent-Society according to which appointment could not be made of a person who was residing outside the revenue jurisdiction of the employer. In absence of rules, the appointment could not be classified as improper. On the contrary, the workman placed reliance on resolutions of the respondent- Society dated April 6, 1998; March 21, 1998 and the order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Palwal granting sanction to the respondent-Society to engage a Clerk. This documentary evidence was led by the workman and were "marked". The Labour Court has accepted this documentary evidence and rejected the plea of the management that the post of Clerk was abolished as the respondent-Society was suffering from heavy losses. No evidence was led by the management in support of the plea of abolition of post. The respondent-Management is not before this Court complaining of acceptance of marked documents. The Labour Court in fact is correct in holding that it had no reason to disbelieve the authenticity of the aforesaid documents. On reading the Award, three matters stand out that the petitioner was working as a Clerk against a permanent/regular post as held by the Labour Court itself; there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act writ large; there was no evidence on record that the respondent had suffered heavy losses; the termination order was illegal; that it was a case for reinstatement. When all the above factors are taken as true and correct an order of full back wages should normally have followed. The respondent-Society is a society registered under the Haryana Societies Registration Act, 1984. It is not a public body. It has not been created by statute. Its employees do not have any constitutional protection. No public funds are involved in its running. The Labour Court has given no reason whatsoever justifying grant of only 10% back wages which is hopelessly undervalued, unreasonable and inadequate. It would act more as an insult to injury. It is not judicious exercise of discretion by the Labour Court. The grant of 10% back wages in a case of this kind disturbs the conscience and I would draw strength from the words of the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, AIR 2010 SC 1116 : (2010) 3 SCC 192 : LNIND 2010 SC 16 : (2010) 3 MLJ 127 (SC): 2010-II-LLJ-277 (SC) which are quoted here as apt to the present case: