- (1.) THE Labour Court, Quilon, in an award passed in industrial Dispute No. 12 of 1982. found that the appellant was a workman, that he was denied employment from 14-2-1979 without any reason and without any notice and without any retrenchment compensation. It also found that the denial of employment amounted to retrenchment. However, while directing re-instatetment, the Labour Court stated thus: "as such I find that he is entitled to be reinstated in service under the opposite party. At the same time there is nothing in evidence to show that the petitioner has made any earnest efforts to secure an alternate employment so as to minimise his loss. In the circumstances I find that the claimant will be entitled to reinstatement in service with half back wages and continuity of service".
(2.) THE workman, the appellant, therefore filed the writ petition against this award, contending that having found that retrenchment was illegal, he was entitled to full back wages and that the reason given by the labour Court to restrict his claim to half back wages was clearly illegal. THE learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage. THE learned judge held thus: "it is in the discretion of the Labour Court in ordering reinstatement as to further direction should be given in a particular case. THE Labour Court has adverted to the matter and has held that the petitioner did not make any earnest efforts to secure an alternate employment so as to minimise his loss. I do not think that the approach made by the Labour Court is in any way erroneous or that the jurisdiction vested in the 1st respondent was exercised illegally or perversely. Ext. P1 is not open to any challenge. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226of the Constitution is not warranted. THE Original Petition is dismissed in limine. " It is against this judgment that this appeal has been filed. It may be noted that the employer, the 1st respondent, has not challenged this award. This is conceded by the counsel appearing for the Management. The only question, therefore, is whether the Labour Court was right in denying to the petitioner the full back wages after holding that the retrenchment was illegal and was opposed to S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act. In the decision of the Supreme Court in S. K. Verma v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court New Delhi (AIR. 1981 SC. 422) the Supreme court was considering as to the principles to be followed for directing wages when retrenchment was made in violation of the provisions of S. 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act. Their Lordships observed thus: "we do not propose to refer to the cases arising under S: 33 and 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act or to cases arising out of references under Ss. 10 and 10a of the Industrial Disputes Act. Nor do we propose to engage ourselves in the unfruitful task of answering the question whether the termination of the services of a workman in violation of the provisions of S. 25p is void ab initio or merely invalid and inoperative, even if it is possible to discover some razor's edge distinction between the Latin 'void ab initio' and the Anglo-Saxon invalid and inoperative. Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter' statutes. Welfare statutes roust, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological exclusions. 'void ab initio', 'invalid and inoperative' or call it what you will, the workman and the employer are primarily concerned with the consequence of striking down the order of termination of the services of the workmen. Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-a-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the Court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The Court may deny the relief to award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the Court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily" the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted. "
(3.) APPLYING these principles, it is clear that the reason given by the Labour Court is untenable. No exceptional cases was pleaded or found in favour of the employer to deny the workman the full back wages which he was entitled to consequent on the direction for reinstatement after finding that the retrenchment was illegal. The Supreme Court has stressed that the relief of awarding of full back wages should be the ordinary rule and denial is only an exception. It has also stated that there is only a vestige of discretion left in the Labour Court to make consequential orders for depriving a workman, in such circumstances, his right to full back wages. The Labour court does not seem to have addressed the question with reference to the principles stated by the Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 422, In the circumstances, while upholding the order of the Labour Court that the retrenchment of the workmen was illegal and is violative of Art. 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act and that be is entitled to reinstatement and also upholding the direction that he is entitled to back wages, the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to consider whether the workman is not entitled to the full back wages. The Labour Court will consider the matter after hearing both sides and in case it decides that the workman is entitled to get full back wages, it will mould its reliefs after taking into consideration the fact that half back wages has already been granted and has become final also. The judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal is disposed of to the extent indicated above. Let photostat copy of this judgment be furnished to counsel appearing for the parties. Dismissed. . .;