HIMMAT SINGH Vs. JUDGE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Rule the petitioner has challenged a part of the Industrial Tribunal by which though the petitioner's termination from service has been set aside, he has not been allowed back wages from the date of his termination till his reinstatement. In disallowing the back wages, the learned Tribunal held:

(2.) MR . Bhandari on behalf of the non -petitioners however, contended that in view of N.E. Industries v. Hanuman AIR 1968 SC 33 back wages cannot be given because the termination of service under the Standing Order is automatic and Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act will not apply. It must be stated, in the present case, this was a reference Under Section 10 of the Act and more over after the Supreme Court decision. Their Lordships have specifically said with the meaning of retrenchment in four instances only in State Bank v. N.S. Money AIR 1976 SC 111 and also in L. Robert 'D' Souza v. Executive Engineers Southern Railway AIR 1982 SC 854. It is quite clear that the learned Judge finding about that the retrenchment is too bad in pursuance of the standing order cannot be assailed and, therefore, Mr. Bhandari's contention cannot be accepted to be correct.