NAKODAR COOP SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 302 of 1998 and 12163 of 1995, as common questions of facts are involved in both the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 302 of 1998 filed by the Management against the award dated 13.10.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar whereby, it was held that the termination of the workman was not justified and he was held entitled for full back wages for the period of his forced unemployment commencing from 01.04.1991 upto 21.07.1996, when he resumed duty. The workman was held entitled for interest @12% p.a. on payment which was due from 26.02.1992, the date of demand notice.

(2.) Initially, notice of motion was issued on the issue of back wages only and the writ was ordered to be heard alongwith CWP No. 12163 of 1995, in which the Management had challenged the interim award dated 18.05.1995 passed by the Labour Court whereby, the Labour Court had directed the Management to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages subject to the condition that the interim award would be subject to the final award to be passed. The said writ petition was admitted and the operation of the award was stayed with respect to the payment of back wages on 08.02.1996. Resultantly, the workman was taken back in service on 21.07.1996. Therefore, the issue in dispute only remains regarding the back wages which had been granted by the Labour Court from 01.04.1991 to 21.07.1996.

(3.) Perusal of the writ petition goes on to show that the workman was employed as Cane Kamdar on 31.03.1989 with the Management mill and his services were dispensed with on 01.04.1991. The demand notice was raised on 26.02.1992 and the matter was referred by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab on 08.07.1992 to the Labour Court, Jalandhar on the issue that whether the termination of the services of the workman were in proper and justified way and to what relief he was entitled. The Management took the plea that the workman was terminated vide order dated 10.03.1992 after finalization of the inquiry. In view of the fact that the management did not produce any evidence regarding the fact of domestic enquiry and in view of the statement dated 27.03.1995 of Shri K.M. Gupta, authorized representative, the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry relied upon by the respondent was in fair and proper manner was decided against the respondent-management and vide the interim award, reinstatement was ordered with full back wages, as noticed above. Thereafter, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that since the management had failed to produce their witness for cross examination, examination-in-chief could not be read into and accordingly held that the termination orders dated 01.04.1991 and 10.03.1992 were not justified. On the issue of back wages, the Labour Court noticed that in the evidence, it has come on record that the workman had worked in Poultry Feed Sale Depot of his father Amar Singh at Dasuya under the name and style of Saini Poultry Feed. The finding was recorded that it was not possible to conclude that the workman was gainfully employed on the shop of his father and merely because he assisted his father for some time on his poultry feed shop, it could not be a ground for refusal of back wages. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Hari Palace vs. Presiding Officer, Labour court and another,1980 40 RLR 383 to conclude that full back wages was a normal rule.