High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. State - WRIT - C No. 30191 of 1991  RD-AH 5845 (9 March 2006)
Court no. 31
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30191 of 1991
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
The State of U.P. and ors.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
This petition has been filed against an award of the Labour Court dated 30.5.1991 passed in adjudication case no. 10 of 1987 by which the respondent who was working as bus conductor with the petitioner corporation, was reinstated with full back wages.
An interim order was passed on 22.10.1991 by which the respondent workman was reinstated and has been working since then. Under the said order, the High Court has also directed that half of the back wages, which are deposited shall also be withdrawn by the respondent workman.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner corporation had complied with the order dated 22.10.1991. However the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in absence of any discussion in the award with regard to gainful employment and in absence of any pleading or proof given by the respondent workman, inspite of his being non-employed during the period in between he is not entitled to any back wages.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited before this Court a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd., versus Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 wherein the apex court has held that no precise formula can be laid down as to when full back wages should be allowed. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However full wages cannot be allowed automatically or mechanically only because an order of termination is found to be unsustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that while granting relief of back wages, the Labour Court has to apply its mind to the question of onus to plead and prove that the workman was not gainfully employed is on the workman.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case there is no finding on this aspect of the matter and the workman has not proved that he was gainfully employed during the period that he stood terminated. There is force in the submission made by the leaned counsel for the petitioner. The workman has already been reinstated and in fact under the order of this court also withdrawn 50% of the back wages which had been deposited.
In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the award of the Labour Court in this respect needs to be modified and the grant of full back wages is set aside. However money which had already been withdrawn by the respondent workman, shall not be recovered from him. The order of reinstatement in the award will remain as it is but the order of payment of full back wages is set aside.
The writ petition is partly allowed but there will be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.