S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorari modifying the award passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court") whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - has been granted to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") in lieu of full back wages, after holding that the termination of the services of the workman was illegal and unjustified.
(2.) SURPRISINGLY enough, the Labour Court in the award referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Haryana Warehousing Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, 1997(1) PLR 99 :, 1997(1) SCT 258 (P&H). After quoting the ratio of the judgment, the Labour Court proceeded to deny back wages to the workman by granting lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,000/ -. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held as follows : - "It was obligatory on the part of the management to comply with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act before terminating the services of respondent No. 2 and the fact of its non -compliance entitles the Labour Court to pass an award in favour of the workman declaring that he is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages." The Labour Court has given a finding of fact that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in a year preceding the termination of his services. The Labour Court has also held that in such circumstances, it was necessary to comply with Section 25 -F of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In such circumstances, clearly the ratio in the judgment of Haryana Warehousing Corporation (supra) was fully applicable to the facts of this case. In fact relying on the ratio of the judgment, the Labour Court held that the services of the workman were terminated illegally by the respondent and the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service. Yet thereafter, without any rhyme or reason, the workman has been denied the grant of full back wages. It seems that the Labour Court was not aware of the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, 1979 81 P.L.R.720. In the aforesaid case, the Full Bench considered the question as to what criteria should govern the grant of full back wages to workman under the industrial law when the termination of his services is held invalid by the Labour Court and the relief of reinstatement is granted to him. After considering the entire matter, 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 Pvt. Ltd. and 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 y. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd."
(3.) FROM the perusal of the above, it becomes obvious that full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating a departure. A perusal of the award shows that no cogent reasons have been given for departing from the normal rule. Consequently, the award deserves to be modified as prayed.;