S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman) seeks a limited relief to the effect that the award made by the Labour Court dated 26.3.1998 be modified to the effect that the petitioner is reinstated into service with full back wages, instead of 50 per cent back -wages which have been given in the award.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the award shows that the workman had worked for 313 days from April 1980 to March, 1981. It is also noticed that Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with. No notice or compensation under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act was given to the workman before he was asked to go. However, 50 per cent of the back wages have been denied to the workman on the ground that delay in disposal of the case is not because of the Management and the workman succeeds on technical ground.
(3.) I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid award suffers from error of law apparent on the face of the record. Non -compliance of Section 25 -F of the Act is not a mere technicality as has been held by the Labour Court. Once it is shown to the satisfaction of the Labour Court that there has been a non -compliance of Section 25 -F of the Act, the order of termination is rendered void and non est, ab initio. Consequently, the workman has to be held entitled to full back wages. This proposition has been categorically laid down by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, 1979 P.L.R. Vol LXXXI 720. The Full Bench observed as follows : -"6. However, all controversy now seems to have been set at rest by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pyt. Ltd ana others, wherein the appeal by Special Leave was expressly limited to the question of grant of back wages. It has been held therein in no uncertain terms: "Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer". And again : "Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure." The aforesaid view has then been reiterated by their Lordships in G.T. Lad and others v. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd.";