HINDUSTAN ZINC LIMITED Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which have come on record reveal that Bhagwan Singh was initially appointed as under -ground Mazdoor in 1975, his services were terminated with effect from 22.8.1976 and he was again appointed on 17.5.1977 at his own request. The services of the petitioner were again terminated by order dated 3/5.1.1979. An Industrial Dispute was raised and the matter was ultimately referred to Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur as a result of directives issued by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2239 of 1983, decided on 12th June, 1986. The following question was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(2.) THE Tribunal vide its order dated 22.11.1990 held the termination of the petitioner's services invalid and ordered for his re -instatement with full back wages. It is not disputed that before passing the order dated 3/5.1.1979, an inquiry was held by the petitioners, in which it was found that the respondent No. 2 has been wilfully absented from duty. However, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that it was not a case of punishment but a case of discharge Simplicitor and the inquiry was conducted only by way of abundant caution. In the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the workman that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with before terminating the services and, therefore, it is not a valid retrenchment and it was also contended that the termination as a direct result of holding an inquiry and finding the incumbent guilty of willful absence and notwithstanding the fact appearing on the face of the order, it is to be deemed that the order was punitive in nature. The Tribunal while deciding issue No. 2 has found that the order cannot be considered as an order simpliciter of termination but was an order of punishment. While deciding issue No. 3, by taking into consideration the material on record, the Tribunal also found that the concerned workman Bhagwan Singh was absent from duty for sufficient and adequate reason and, therefore, his termination of service on account of wilful absence was not justified. In view of this finding, the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 was not held to be valid and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages.

(3.) ON their own submissions, if the order of termination is held to be of discharge simplicitor, it will still be invalid for the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 have not been complied with regarding conditions precedent for effecting a valid retrenchment and the resultant position would be the same as has come into existence as a result of impugned Award. If the order is held to be punitive, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are the findings based on the material placed before it and are unaffected under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No error on the face of record is pointed out. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel contended that atleast the Tribunal was not justified in awarding back wages. This contention is stated only to be rejected. When the termination order is found to be illegal, the ordinary consequence is that it is deemed that the services never came to an end and the incumbent is restored to status from which his services were brought to an end. The award of back wages was made as a natural consequence. No exceptional circumstances have been stated to take a different view.