RAM BHAJ SINGH Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall decide CWP Nos. 18719 of 2016, 18722 of 2016 and 18723 of 2016, as similar point for consideration arises in all cases, i.e., whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') holding the termination of service of the petitioner-workman to be in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but reinstating the workman with 50% back wages is liable to be modified and the workman held entitled to full back wages.

(2.) Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of writ petitions are that the petitioners were selected and appointed as Tubewell Attendants vide appointment letter dated 19.01.1993 / 19.01.1993 / and 04.02.1993 respectively. Services of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 04.11.2000. Appeal filed by the petitioners before the Chairman, Board of Directors of respondent No.2 was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2008 as was the second appeal filed before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, Haryana, vide order dated 30.04.2009 and 14.01.2011 respectively, where after the petitioners raised an industrial dispute by serving demand notice dated 02.05.2011. On completion of pleadings and on the basis of evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal passed award Annexure P/3, dated 22.05.2015, 25.05.2015 and 26.05.2015 respectively by directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages w.e.f. the date of claim statement i.e. 29.08.2011. Award Annexure P/3 was challenged by the respondent / management by way of CWP No.17271 of 2015/ CWP No.17241 of 2015 and CWP No.17242 of 2015 respectively but the same were dismissed by upholding the award passed by the Tribunal, vide order Annexure P/4 dated 20.08.2015, while observing therein that the order would not preclude the petitioners /workmen from approaching the High Court for award of full back wages and in case such a petition was filed, the same would be decided on its own merits.

(3.) Sole ground of challenge to the impugned awards in all the three writ petitions is of the petitioners having been denied full back wages especially in view of the writ petitions filed by the respondent-management against the impugned award having been dismissed by the High Court and the awards having attained finality.