COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the impugned judgment and award dt. 5.2.1999 (Annexure 4) by which the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara ordered reinstatement of respondent No.1 and it was directed that in case respondent No.1 was not reinstated within one month, then he would be entitled to get all consequential benefits be set aside and furthermore the order dt. 20.9.2001 (Annexure 8) by which application for setting aside ex -parte award was rejected be set aside. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That the State Government referred the following dispute vide notification dt. 18.3.1993 to the respondent No.2 (Labour Court, Bhilwara): "Whether termination of services of workmen Shyam Lai son of Shri Chhoga Lal Gurjar by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilwara were just and valid? If not, then to what relief, the workmen is entitled to?" ii) That thereafter the respondent No.1 filed a claim petition (Annexure 1) before the Labour Court, Bhilwara contending therein that from September 1990 to August, 1991, he continuously worked on the post of Beldar in the Municipal Corporation, Bhilwara, but however in the end of August, 1991, his services were terminated without following the relevant provisions of law. iii) Reply to the claim petition was filed by the petitioner through Annexure -

(2.) IV ) After recording evidence, the respondent No.2 passed the ex -parte impugned award dt. 5.2.1999 (Annexure 4) in favour of respondent No.1 and against the petitioner. v) Aggrieved from the judgment and award dt. 5.2.1999 (Annexure 4), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.

(3.) LOOKING to the fact that respondent No.1 had not worked during relevant period and on the basis of principle of "No work No Pay", prayer submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be genuine and reasonable one especially when nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 even inspite of service. The Court is aware that in general case when order of reinstatement is passed in favour of workman, he is generally entitled to back wages, but in exceptional case, back wages can be refused and the present case appears to be one of the exceptional case. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is partly allowed and that portion of the judgment and award dt. 5.2.1999 (Annexure 4) passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara by which respondent No.1 was ordered to be reinstated in service is upheld. However, that portion of the judgment and award dt. 5.2.1999 (Annexure 4) passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara by which the learned Labour Court ordered that after expiry of one month, the respondent No.1 would be entitled to back wages is set aside. The judgment and award dt. 5.2.1999 (Annexure 4) passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara is modified to above extent. Cost made easy. Order accordingly.