AMRIK KAUR Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a clerk-cum-typist with the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (for short, "the management"), on August 27, 1985. Her services were terminated by the management on December 25, 1987, which gave rise to an industrial dispute and the same was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh. The Labour Court, as per its award dated February 5, 1990 (published on April 23, 1990, and annexure P-1 with the writ petition), held that the termination of services of the workman was illegal and that she was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The management was directed to comply with the award within two months from the date of its publication by the Chandigarh Administration. While the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court, the petitioner joined the education department of the Punjab Government as social studies mistress on January 1, 1990. After the publication of the award, she served a notice on the management requiring it to pay her the backwages in terms of the aforesaid award of the Labour Court for the period from December 25, 1987, to December 31, 1989. The management having declined to give her the back-wages, she filed an application before the Labour Court under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). She claimed a sum of Rs. 62,235, as backwages for a period of two years till December 31, 1989, i. e. , till the date she joined the Punjab Education Department. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to back-wages as she failed to bring to the notice of that court the fact of her employment in the education department of the State Government. According to the Labour Court, this was a deliberate concealment of a material fact by the workman arid, therefore, her claim was rejected. It is this order of the Labour Court that has been impugned in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE argument of Mr. Arora, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is that she is entitled to backwages in terms of the aforesaid award of the Labour Court and that she is claiming wages only up to the period December 31, 1989, whereafter she joined the Punjab Government as social studies mistress. According to learned counsel, the right to claim back-wages cannot be defeated merely because she has joined the education department of the State Government. On the other hand, the contention of Mr. M. S. Rahi, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 2, is that there was one integrated award directing reinstatement of the petitioner and also payment of backwages to her. According to learned counsel, the right to claim backwages is not an independent one and unless she joins the service as directed by the Labour Court, she cannot claim implementation of the award in part. It is further contended by Mr. Rahi that the petitioner withheld a material fact of her employment from the Court and if the same had been brought to its notice the relief that might have been given to her would have been different because she got employed during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned Labour Court, while adjudicating the industrial disputes referred to it under Section 10 (1) of the Act, found that the termination was illegal. The general rule is that in cases where termination is illegal, the workman is normally entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages. This relief was given to the workman in the instant case. But, if the Labour Court had been informed that the workman had got, an employment with the State Government, the nature of relief would have been different. In such cases, reinstatement obviously is not the relief that can be granted and the Industrial Courts normally award compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. There is no gain-saying the fact that the petitioner was employed during the pendency of the reference proceedings before the Labour Court. The relief that is granted to the workman is always a matter of discretion with the Labour Courts/industrial Tribunals and that discretion has to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner had been reemployed during the pendency of the proceedings, the award dated February 5. 1990, is modified to the extent that the petitioner will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Obviously, the question of payment of any backwages does not arise.