VED PARKASH SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the award dated Dec. 5, 1990 by which the labour Court awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000.00 to him as compensation for the period he remained unemployed in spite of the fact that the termination of the services was found to be violative of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On March 19, 1981, respondent No. 1 offered a contract of appointment for an Overseas Project to the petitioner on the post of Pharmacist. This appointment was for a contract period of 3 years. In this letter, it was specifically mentioned that "your initial place of posting shall be at IRAQ and during your posting there you shall receive a salary of I.D.90 (IRAQI DINARS Ninety only). However while posting in India, you would receive a salary of Rs. (_______) Rupees (_________) and that in addition to ....." The petitioner avers that he joined his post at Basra on June 5, 1981. His salary was later on increased to I.D. 110 per month. He avers that he suddenly fell ill at Basra. So, he was sent back to India on account of ill health by respondent No. 2 on March 3, 1982 with a direction that the petitioner shall report to the Head Office. He claims to have reported on March 5, 1982 to the Head Office of respondent No. 2. He was called upon to report on March 10, 1982. The petitioner avers that when he reported on March 10, 1982, he was served with the termination order on the ground that his services are no longer required in India. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-2. The order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court. In spite of the finding that the termination was violative of the provisions of Sec. 25-F, the Labour Court awarded the petitioner a total of Rs. 40,000.00 in lump sum. Claiming that the petitioner was entitled to the payment of full back wages, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner had issued the demand notice on June 18, 1983. A copy of this notice has been produced as Annexure R-2. It is claimed that on account of delay in raising the demand, the petitioner lost his right to claim full back wages. It has also been averred that he was gainfully employed during the period in question. It has been further averred that in fact, the Labour Court had erred in awarding Rs. 40,000.00 to the petitioner. He was not entitled to this amount. According to the respondents, the petitioner used to get less than Rs. 1000.00 per month while he was working in India. It is only on account of his posting abroad that the petitioner was given three times his salary to which he was actually entitled. By way of illustration, it has been mentioned that Mr. B.M. Gupta, Accounts Officer was getting a salary of Rs. 1300.00 per month besides Rs. 275.00 as House Rent Allowance but on his posting abroad, he was given a salary of I,D. 200 per month. On return, even his salary was fixed at Rs. 925.00. It has also been averred that the respondents had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3204 of 1991 challenging the award which was dismissed with the observation that "we find no error in the impugned order." On this premises, it is claimed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.