BHANWAR LAL Vs. U.O.I. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1998, whereby the relief of the reinstatement granted to the present appellant by the Labour Court was upheld by the learned Single Judge. However, the directions as had been given by the Labour Court were modified by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to the back wages only from the date of reference i.e. 1.1.1992.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed this modified of the award by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it was not the fault of the appellant that the reference was made on 1.1.1992. The fact is that the he had worked with the respondents right from 4.5.1984 and he was made permanent on 15.4.1984 And on 5.1.1986, he was terminated. He, initially, raised the dispute in 1986 itself and the Government had refused to make the reference. Thereupon, he filed the petition which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2382/1986, Bhanwarlal v. Union of India & Ors. and the same was decided on 6.12.1989 and the judgment of the same was reported in 1990 WLN (UC) 95. This clearly shows that the appellant had raised the dispute in the year 1986 itself and when the Government refused to make the reference to the Labour Court, he filed the writ petition and this petition was decided by the Court on 6.12.1989, wherein the directions were issued to the appropriate Government to decide as to whether the dispute should be referred to the Labour court for adjudication or not within a period of one month from the date of receipt of report submitted by the respondent under Clause (iv) of Section 12 of the Act. It was because of these directions issued by this Court on 6.12.1989 that the reference was made.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order dated 6.12.1989 has already attained the finality. Although, the directions were issued on 6.12.1989, the appropriate Government took further time to make the reference and the reference was made on 1.1.1992, therefore, there was no lapse on the part of the present appellant. Merely because, the reference was made in the year 1992, although he had initially raised the dispute in the year 1986 itself, we fail to understand, when the directions were issued on 6.12.1989 to make the reference, as to how the further time till 1.1.1992 was taken by the appropriate Government to make the reference. The appellant submits that he remained employed with the respondents from 1980 but did not remain gainfully employed anywhere after his termination in the year 1986 and in this view of the matter, he is entitled to full back wages for the entire period of enforced idleness. Learned counsel for the the respondents has submitted that he has not furnished any proof in support of his claim and so far as the Court's directions are concerned, the due amount of back wages as ordered by the learned Single Judge on 29.7.1998 i.e. back wages from 1.1.1992, had already been paid to the appellant and he is also continuing In service.