M.P. TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. JAWAHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether Labour Court and then Industrial Court were justified in awarding back wage to the respondent (workman) It is the case of petitioner (employer) that no case whatsoever was made out for award of backwage.

(2.) The award of back wage is not the natural consequence that flows no sooner the termination is set aside. It is in the nature of discretion and depend upon facts of each case and circumstances appearing in the case as also the pleading of the parties and evidence led. It is necessary for the employee/workman to plead and prove by leading evidence may be of any nature that father his termination he remained unemployed and did not work for gains. It is then for the Labour Court to decide as to whether the case of back wage set up by the employee should be accepted in full or part and whether any evidence was led by the employer to show that employee was in fact working for gains thereby disentitling himself from claiming any back wage. See MPEB Vs. Jarina Be 2003 (98) FLR 595 (SC) = 2003 (8) AIC 8 (SC) .

(3.) Coming to the facts of the case, the respondent did not plead in the application even a word about claiming of back wage, nor said a word in his evidence. So neither there was any factual foundation in the application, nor in evidence. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court could not have awarded any back wages. Indeed, there was no discussion in the order of Labour Court, as to why and on what basis and for what cause a case for grant of back wage is made out. This mistake was committed by the Industrial Court as well in appeal.