G.S Sandhawalia J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the worklady, challenging the award dated 16.05.2008 (Annexure P3) whereby only 40% back wages have been granted to the petitioner, while ordering reinstatement with continuity of service.
2. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the worklady joined the respondent-Management on 27.05.1993 as a Sweeper and worked till 01.10.1996 and she was getting Rs. 2500/- per month. She alleged that her services were regularized after 1 year and thereafter, her services were dispensed with on 01.10.1996
3. Respondent-Management denied the fact that her services were regularized and took the plea that her services were dispensed with as per the terms and conditions of the employment.
4. The Labour Court held that the course adopted by the Management was not legal and proper and the termination was held to be illegal and improper and she was held entitled for reinstatement in service as a Sweeper, along with back wages to the extent of 40% of the last drawn salary. However, it was held that it was not proved that she did not remain unemployed after her termination from service.
5. The said award was challenged by the Management by filing CWP No. 4773 of 2009 which was dismissed on 13.08.2009, after hearing both sides. The present writ petition was filed after 2 years thereafter, i.e, on 19.09.2011, asking for the relief of full back wages.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that keeping in view the fact that the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated, she was entitled for full back wages and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Udai Narain Pandey(2006) 1 SCC 479 and also upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation Ltd., Behrampur, Gurgaon v. Om Prakash1995 (3) PLR 688 and of a Single Bench of this Court in Puran Singh v. Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran2001 (2) RSJ 258, to submit that full back wages was to be granted.
7. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that the discretion which has been exercised by the Labour Court cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled principle of law that while exercising the writ jurisdiction, this Court is not sitting as a Court of appeal over the jurisdiction exercised by the Labour Court. The facts in the present case show that the petitioner-worklady had worked a little over 3 years when her services were terminated and she has been directed to be put back in service, vide award dated 16.05.2008 The nature of work of the worklady is of a Sweeper and therefore, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that from the period of termination, she would not have remained unemployed, as such and therefore, the submission that she should be granted 100% back wages, is not legally tenable. Now, another relevant factor which goes against the worklady is that the award was adjudicated upon by this Court on 13.08.2009 in the writ petition filed by the respondent-Management, against the award dated 16.05.2008 No effort was made at any point of time to challenge the findings of back wages being restricted to 40%. Rather, after a period of 2 years, once the writ petition of the Management had been dismissed, the present writ petition was filed on 19.09.2011
8. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the discretionary relief, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not liable to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.