High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C.S.A.K.E.P.V. Vidyalaya, Kanpur & Another v. Labour Court (Iv), Kanpur & Others - WRIT - C No. 23664 of 1996  RD-AH 4427 (24 February 2006)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.23664 OF 1996
Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam
Pradhyogik Vishwa Vidyalaya, Kanpur through its
Vice Chancellor and another. ...Petitioners
Labour Court (IV), Kanpur and others. ...Respondents
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
This petition is filed against an award of the Labour Court dated 22.4.96 passed in adjudication Case No. 62 of 1991. By the said award, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion and has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent workman had completed more than 240 days of service and his service was in violation to the provisions of Section 6 N of the U.P.I.D. Act and, therefore, reinstated him with back wages for a sum of Rs.20,000/-.
Under the interim order of this Court dated 30.7.96 the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the workman has been reinstated in compliance of the said order and is working since then.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the award of back wages of Rs.20,000/- is wholly unjustified and not warranted in view of the fact that the award does not record any finding on the question of gainful employment and the workman has not proved before the Labour Court in any way that he was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. S.C. Sharma 2005 S.C.C. (L&S)270 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the payment of back wages involves discretionary relief and, therefore, each case has to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances. It is incumbent upon the Labour Court while making a grant of back wages to apply its mind to the question and then determine the entitlement. It is not the natural consequences of reinstatement that back wages are to be granted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh, 2005 SCC (L & S)716 where also the Hon'ble Apex Court as said that the order granting back wages should not be passed in a mechanical manner but a serious consideration of factors such as the nature of appointment, qualifications of workman, length of service and availability of alternative work has to be undergone.
The contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case, there is no justification for the grant of Rs.20,000/- as back wages is correct and has substance and is, therefore, accepted by this Court. Although, I have heard the matter in the revised list, learned counsel for the respondent has not appeared. The writ petition is of the year 1996 and no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent's counsel.
In the result, I allow this writ petition partly. The respondent workman shall not be paid any back wages. But the order of his reinstatement passed in the award shall remain as it is.
The writ petition is partly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Dated : 24.2.06
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.