AMRIK SINGH Vs. DT FOOD AND SUPPLIES CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved only with regard to orders passed in that behalf by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur granting them half the back wages while reinstating them with continuity of service vide award dated September 17, 1991. The facts need not be given in detail as admittedly retrenchment of the petitioners was found to be invalid for non- compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is on that count that orders of termination were declared invalid by the Labour Court vide award, referred to above. No reasons whatsoever have been stated as to why only half the back wages were being granted and not the full. However, in the written statement filed in this case, all that is stated is the petitioners were engaged on daily-wage basis and their wages were fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District from time to time. It is also pleaded that the service of the daily-wage Chowkidars ended on the end of each working day. It is also pleaded that the services of the petitioners were dispensed with as they were surplus and no person junior to them was retained. Once again, nothing at all has been detailed in the written statement from where some justification for giving the petitioners only half the back-wages could be made out. It is by now a settled proposition of law and reference may conveniently be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. The Management of Mis Bharat Electronics Ltd. 1981-II-LLJ-70 and to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1980-IILLJ-294 that when termination of services of a workman are found to be illegal, declaration must follow that workman continues in serve with consequential benefits. Also that where termination is illegal, especially where there is an ineffective order of retrenchment, there is neither termination nor cessation of service and a declaration follows that the workman concerned continues to be in service with all consequential benefits, namely, back wages in full and other benefits. Full Bench of this Court in Hart Palace's case (supra) also held that full back wages is the normal rule when order of termination is held to be illegal. This is how the Full Bench precisely dealt with the matter (pp. 295-296)

(2.) AS referred to above, nothing at all was mentioned either before the Labour Court or before this Court as to why this rule should be departed in the present case.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed and the award of the Labour Court dated September 17, 1991 is modified by holding that the workmen-petitioners would be entitled to full backwages. However, there shall be no order as to costs.