S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 7.1.1999, copy Annexure P/1, vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity thereof and full back wages. The challenge to the award in this writ petition is only against the grant of full back wages.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent, complaining that his services were terminated on 7.10.1988, raised a demand by way of demand notice which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court and ex -parte award was passed in favour of the respondent. The respondent thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court being Civil Writ petition No. 3176 of 1997. By the Order in that writ petition, the award was set -aside and the case was remanded to the Labour Court. The order of this Court as reproduced in the award of the Labour Court is as under : - "During the course of arguments, a consensus has been arrived at between learned counsel for the parties. It is jointly stated by them that award Annexure P -4 may be set aside and the parties be directed to appear before the Labour Court, Jalandhar which in turn be directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of parties appear before it. We may state here that the consensus has been arrived at between learned counsel for the parties as there is serious dispute with regard to service of the respondent - management before the Labour Court and it is for that precise reason, and rightly so, that it has been thought to have trial on merits of the case. In view of what has been said by learned counsel for the parties, as noted above, we set aside the award, Annexure P -4 and remit the case to the Labour Court, Jalandhar for trial de novo. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Jalandhar on April 15, 1988, the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date the parties appear before it. It shall be open to the petitioner to make a correction in the name of the respondent -management." After the matter was remanded, the Labour Court heard the parties and passed the impugned award, a part of which is now being challenged by way of this writ petition.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner argued that earlier the name of the employee was wrongly mentioned and therefore, the matter proceeded ex -parte and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be taxed with the back wages from the initial stage. It is not in dispute that name of the petitioner is M/s Radha Rubber Industries, In the earlier proceedings Labour Court proceeded against Radha Rubber Factory as that was the name given by respondent workman in the demand notice.;