RAJINDER SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed with two-fold prayers. In the first place, it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to implement the award (Annexure P-I) and to take back the petitioner on duty forthwith and release 50% back wages. In the second place, that portion of the award has been challenged by which the Labour Court has restricted the relief of back wages to the extent of 50%.

(2.) SHORN of other details, it may be stated that the petitioner was appointed as Mason some time in July, 1988 in the Public Works Department (B&r), Punjab and was posted at Sector 39, Chandigarh. According to the petitioner, his service was terminated w. e. f. March 1, 1989 without compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short,' the Act' ). He filed civil writ petition No. 3047 of 1989 challenging the termination of his service. Initially, the High Court passed an order of status-quo on March 13, 1989 but later on that order was vacated. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on December 20, 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a demand for his re-instatement and ultimately the Government of Punjab made a reference of the Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court, Union Territory Chandigarh. Notice of the reference was served upon the parties. No one appeared on behalf of the employer and on August 22, 1994, the Labour Court passed an order for ex parte proceedings. The petitioner appeared ana supported his claim. Relying on his testimony, the Labour Court held that the termination ofservice of the petitioner was contrary to Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act. Consequently, it passed the award Annexure P-1 dated October 3, 1994 and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service but 50% back wages.

(3.) EVEN thereafter, the petitioner was not reinstated in the service. Notice of this petition was ordered to be issued on January 18, 1996. When the case was listed for arguments on February 16, 1996, the court expressed the opinion that the departmental officials have derilicted in the discharge of their duties by not implementing the award dated October 3, 1994 and, therefore, appropriate action deserves to be taken against them. On February 22, 1996, learned Deputy Advocate General informed the court that the petitioner has been taken back in service w. e. f. February 18, 1996. It was also given out that of the amount of 50% back wages is ready for payment to the petitioner. That payment has in fact been made to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount paid to the petitioner does not represent complete payment of 50% back wages as payable to the petitioner on the basis of the award (Annexure P-1) because the petitioner has to be given benefit of higher wages on the basis of his continuous service. In our opinion, for claiming such relief, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy available to him under Section 33-C (2) of the Act.