STATE OF M.P. Vs. HARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/Suite of Madhya Pradesh, has challenged the award (Annexure P/1) dated 23rd April 1988, in Case No. 35 of 1986 I.D. Act (Ref.) by L1bour Court No.1, Gwalior, whereby the order dated 16.6.1982 of termination of the services of respondent No.1 was declared non -est, because of non -compliance of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short, the 'Act'), and respondent No.1 was ordered to be reinstated from the date of his termination, with halfback wages.

(2.) 1987 JLJ 249, contended, that the Labour Court did not frame any issue in relation to the question whether the workman was gainfully employed during the relevant period, and in the absence of any evidence and finding thereon in the award, the award of half back wages from the date of termination till the date of the award deserves to be quashed. Besides, the workman was not entitled to any halfback wages prior to the date of raising of the dispute under S. 2A of the Act.

(3.) IN the statement of claim before the Labour Court, the workman challenged the order of termination as null and void because of non -compliance of S. 25F and G of the Act; in para 8 workman specifically pleaded that after termination of his services, he is facing forced unemployment; despite all his. I efforts he did not get any employment and, therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with all full back wages and ancillary benefits. The petitioner/employer denied the allegations. The Labour Court framed three issues, and one related to relief, but no issue was framed on the pleadings as contained in para 8 of the statement. Before Labour Court the workman stated on oath in para 2 that after the date of termination, despite making all his efforts, he could not get any employment; to this there was no cross - examination nor any evidence was led in rebuttal to prove that the workman was gainfully employed. The Labour Court having found that the workman has been retrenched without compliance of S. 25F of the Act, declared the order of termination as non -est and, hence, ordered reinstatement with half back wages from the date of termination till the date of award. 0, and Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Its Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896. 6. The rule of reinstatement and back wages, on an order of discharge, dismissal or retrenchment being demolished, was considered and set out in Hindustan Tin Works v. Its Employees (supra), which we quote from para 9 of the judgment;