Hari Prasad v. Labour Court, Rohtak, And Another

S.S Sandhawalia, C.J (for himself and on behalf of R.N Mittal, J.):— What criteria should govern the grant of full back-wages to a workman under the industrial law, when the termination of his services is held invalid by the Labour Court and the relief for reinstatement is granted to him is the sole, though significant, question which had necessitated the admission of these two connected writ petitions Civil Writ Petition No. 3521 of 1977 [Hari Palace, Ambala City v. Labour Court, Rohtak,], Civil Writ Petition No. 4414 of 1978 [Dharam Paul Chadha v. Labour Court, Rohtak,], for a hearing before a Full Bench.

2. At the very outset it deserves highlighting that the matter is so squarely covered by a recent judgment of the final Court that it would be patently wasteful to elaborate the issue either with regard to the principle or to precedent. Therefore, a brief reference to averments in Civil Writ Petition No. 3521 of 1977 [Hari Palace v. Labour Court, Rohtak], would suffice to give the necessary background giving rise to the legal issue aforesaid.

3. The petitioner-firm claims that their employee-respondent 2, Walaiti Ram, had on his own accord resigned from his job, which was duly accepted by it. However, about two weeks thereafter respondent 2, is alleged to have demanded reinstatement on the plea that his services were illegally terminated on 18 October 1975. An industrial dispute was raised, which on a reference to the Labour Court was decided in favour of the respondent-workman. It was held by the Labour Court vide its order, dated 7 April 1977, that the alleged resignation of the workman was not a genuine document and the termination of his services was unjustified. It accordingly allowed to the workman the relief of reinstatement with effect from 18 October 1975, with continuity of service, and also granted full back-wages from the said date.

4. Sri N.K Sodhi, appearing for the petitioner, very fairly concedes that the sole point that calls for determination in the present case is whether the grant of full back wages to the respondent-workman, without his having made a specific claim therefor or led sufficient evidence in support thereof, is sustainable in law. It was pointed out that no specific issue was framed on this point by the Labour Court. Basically reliance of the learned counsel was on a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sadanand Patankar v. New Prabhat Mills (No. 2), Bombay [1974 II L.L.N 56]. Counsel further argued that in the said High Court a view consistent with the aforesaid judgment has always been taken.

5. There is no gainsaying the fact that there has been some divergence of opinion in the various High Courts on the point earlier. Varying views had been expressed as to where precisely the onus lay with regard to the claim to back-wages and also with regard to the striking of the issues or the necessary point for determination thereof by the Labour Court itself. Within this Court a Division Bench in Daljeet and Company (Private), Ltd. Rupar v. State of Punjab [A.I.R 1964 Punj. 313], has held that where the dismissed employee is reinstated with continuity of service, the normal relief would be the payment of full wages from the date of dismissal, and it is for the employer to raise this matter and prove that the employee had been earning wages for the whole or any part of the period in question. The aforesaid view has been consistently followed in this Court and reaffirmed in Haribhajan Singh v. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh [1977 I L.L.N 532]. The Allahabad High Court was inclined to take a similar view in Postal Seals Industrial Co-operative Society, Ltd. v. Labour Court, Lucknow [1971—I L.L.J 327] and of the same tenor is judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Dhari Gram Panchayat v. Safai Kamdar Mandai [1971—I L.L.J 561].

6. However, all controversy now seems to have been set at rest by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works (Private), Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works (Private), Ltd. [1919 I L.L.N 6], wherein the appeal by special leave was expressly limited to the question of grant of back-wages. It has been held therein in no uncertain terms in Para. 9, at page 10:

“…. Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back-wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer …”

And again in Para. 11 at page 11:

“…Full back-wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure ….”

The aforesaid view has then been reiterated by their Lordships in Lad (G.T) v. Chemicals and Fibres India, Ltd. [1979 I L.L.N 331].

7. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of the law it is plain that the mater is now concluded against the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 3521 of 1977. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.

8. The only additional point raised in Civil Writ Petition No. 4414 of 1978, was that the Labour Court had misdirected itself and misappreciated the evidence in coming to the finding that the respondent-workman was entitled to reinstatement. We have closely perused the order of the Presiding Officer wherein he has adverted to all the relevant evidence to come to a considered finding that the management had abruptly terminated the services of the workman and in fact he never abandoned his post by willful absence from duty as alleged by the management. Even otherwise it is patent this finding in the present case appears to be one of fact arrived at on the basis of evidence adduced. It is not the province of the writ Court to easily disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence. This writ petition also is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.

9. Per Dhillon, J.:— I agree.