ROHTAK CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ROHTAK THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to an award rendered by Shri B.R Jindal, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, dated Aug. 2, 1985, vide which the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) The only ground pressed into service by Mr. Gobinder Singh Sandhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management, with a view to set aside the impugned award, is that the workman had served demand notice upon the Management after five years from the date he was dismissed from service. To be precise, services of the workman were terminated on Aug. 1,1978 and demand was raised by him on Dec. 12, 1983. When confronted with a Division bench judgment of this Court in Management of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Miss Neelam Kumari, 1993(2) PLR 552, holding that there was no limitation for raising an industrial dispute and, therefore, delay and laches is not a ground in itself for striking down the reference, learned counsel limited his relief insofar as it pertains to full back wages from the date of dismissal i.e. Aug. 1, 1978. The contention of the learned counsel, so limited during the course of arguments, as has been noted above, appears to have considerable force. It is conceded position between learned counsel for the parties that the services of workman were terminated on Aug. 1, 1978 and to the raised a demand for the first time on Dec. 12, 1983. Reference was made as Reference No. 10 of 1984 in the year 1984. While dealing with the point of back wages, learned Labour Court observed that the workmen had been agitating his claim in other forums before raising the dispute with the labour department as could be made out from Ex. W-l to W-II which were copies of various applications moved by the workman. The Labour Court further observed that it had gone through the applications given by the workman to various functionaries and that the plight of the workman had been pitiable. It has further been observed that when the workman did not have any avenue left with him, and had been totally frustrated, he turned to Labour Court for the relief. It is under these circumstances that the Labour Court granted him back wages, without specifying as to from which date the workman was entitled to the same. Obviously, when no date has been mentioned, it shall be presumed that the workman has been held entitled to back-wages from the date of termination of his services.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. As mentioned above, it is conceded position that the workman raised a demand for the first time on Dec. 12, 1983 after more than five years when his services were terminated. It could not be shown to this Court as to how various functionaries, before whom the workman had been making various representations, could possibly grant him any relief. In fact, Mr. Lamba, learned counsel for the workman, could not state as to what was all mentioned in Ex. W-l to Ex. W- 11 nor could be tell as to whom these applications were actually addressed. Assuming that all these applications, Ex. W-l to W-II were moved before various functionaries which have not been even specified by the Labour Court, the question arises as to what relief could possibly be granted to the workman in making such applications. Could the orders passed by the Management be set aside and back wages paid to the workman by the functionaries, whosoever they might have been ? If so such relief could ever be granted and workman had to approach an appropriate forum, be it civil court or a reference made by the Government to be decided by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, complaints made by the workman to such functionaries could not come to his rescue in getting back wages for all the while he had been sleeping over his rights. In a case of an illegal or wrongful retrenchment, the workman deserves to be reinstated with continuity of service as it is only in that manner that the justice can be done to him, in a case where the workman has not agitated in an appropriate forum for number of years and slept over its right, grant of full back wages to him despite the order of termination being illegal would work injustice to the management. The scales of justice need to be balanced between the workman and the management. In a given case, when a case is brought from the Labour Court or the Civil Court and the complaint be of illegal retrenchment, the management may straightaway concede and reinstate the workman and in that method avoid payment of back wages for a number of years. This course which is certainly open to the management with a view to avoid payment of back wages cannot be denied to it and the same would be denied if the workman is paid full back wages from the date of dismissal till he is reinstated despite the fact that he has agitated the matter in an appropriate forum after number of years. It is natural to presume that the workman, whose services were terminated, must have been replaced by another workman, to whom the Management must have also paid for all this while, as also that the workman had not worked with the Management for long five years. In considered view of this Court, there was absolutely no justification to burden the management with back wages relief on that count ought to have been limited from the date the workman had made demand from the management. This petition thus, meets with limited success. Whereas, award of the Labour Court with regard to reinstatement of workman with continuity of service is upheld, the payment of back wages from the date of termination to workman is denied and to that extent the award is set aside. It is, however, directed that the management would pay full back wages to the respondent- workman from the date he made a demand i.e. Dec. 12,1983. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.