High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Triveni Engineering And Ind. Ltd. Thru' Its Manager v. Presiding Officer, And Another - WRIT - C No. 20449 of 2004  RD-AH 2248 (30 January 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20449 of 2004
M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and another
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Respondent no.2 was a regular employee of the petitioner-company. He was working as a Switch-board attendant on permanent basis. By an order dated 3.8.1998 the Respondent no.2 was directed to work on deputation in another concern, alleging it to be the sister-concern of the petitioner company, which was in a different district. On the Respondent no.2 refusing to go on deputation, the petitioner served a charge-sheet alleging dis-obedience of its order and after considering the reply of the employee, by an order dated 28.8.1998, the services of the Respondent no.2 was terminated. The Respondent no.2 thereafter raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. By an Award dated 1.10.2003, the Labour Court allowed the claim of the Respondent no.2 and directed his re-instatement with full back wages. Aggrieved by the said Award the employer-company has filed this writ petition.
I have heard Sri V.K.Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
The contention of the petitioner is that since the alleged sister-concern of the petitioner company was subsequently, in the year 2000, amalgamated with the petitioner-company, which was before the decision of the Labour Court, the case of sending the Respondent no.2 on deputation to the alleged sister-concern ought to have been considered as a case of transfer, and the Labour Court has wrongly not treated it to be so and allowed the claim of the Respondent no.2. In this regard it may be observed that as on the date of the order i.e. 3.8.1998, when the respondent no.2 was directed to join on deputation in the independent unit situated in a different district, the said unit was not a part of the petitioner-company. If thereafter, during the pendency of the claim before the Labour Court, the two independent units had amalgamated, they cannot be treated as one Company prior to the amalgamation order. What was to be seen by the Labour Court was the situation as on the date of the order and not the subsequent events which resulted in amalgamation of the two Companies having independent units. As such, the said contention of the petitioner does not have force. Further, on perusal of the Award, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the same nor has the petitioner been able to place any such ground so as to require this Court to interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the Labour Court with regard to reinstatement of the respondent no.2.
However, in the end Sri Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the payment of full back wages was wrongly directed by the Labour Court, specially in view of the admission of the Respondent no.2 himself that after being terminated from service, he was running a shop and was earning about Rs. 50-100/- per day. At time of termination of his service, the Respondent no.2 was getting a salary of about Rs. 3,000/-, which, according to the petitioner, would now be over Rs.5,000/-. In such view of the matter, keeping in view the latest decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 and also keeping in view the own admission of the Respondent no.2 that he was running a shop and earning at least Rs. 50/- per day and sometimes even up to Rs.100/- per day, in my view payment of full back wages was not justified and in the facts and circumstances of this case it would be just and proper if the reinstatement of the petitioner is directed with 50% of the back wages, but with all other consequential benefits.
Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned Award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the petitioner will be entitled to only fifty per cent of the back wages alongwith all other consequential benefits. It is thus directed that if the petitioner reinstates the Respondent no.2 within a period of three months from today, it shall be liable to pay only 50% of the back wages to the Respondent no.2.
Dt/- January 30, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.