- (1.) Short question involved in this case is covered by decision of the Apex Court in Des Raj Gupta vs. Industrial Tribunal IV Lucknow, 1990 AIR(SC) 2174i.e. when the Labour Court holds the enquiry conducted against the workman to be vitiated and illegal and allows the management to prove the guilt before it and finally the Labour Court passes order of dismissal, the same would have effect from the date of the order of the Labour Court and not when the management dismissed the workman. The petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation in 1973 as Helper. He was made regular in 1976. It was op April 28,1980 that a show-cause notice was served upon him with respect to certain irregularities in his functioning. He submitted reply thereto which was followed by a charge-sheet served upon him on June 12,1980. Reply to the charge-sheet was not considered satisfactory that a regular enquiry was ordered and held. Since the petitioner was held guilty, his services were terminated vide order dated March 2,1981-Annexure P-2. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court and the Award-Annexure P3 dated November 14,1990 was passed which was published on October 18,1991. It was held that no proper enquiry was held against the workman on the request made by the management. Opportunity was afforded to lead evidence to prove the allegations against the workman. After both the parties led evidence the Labour Court announced the Award holding termination of the services of the workman to be justified.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of the Labour Court justifying termination of the workman would be effective from the date of the order i.e. November 14, 1990 and the petitioner would be entitled to his salary up to the aforesaid date. It has also been argued that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on the allegation are based on no evidence. As far as the second question is concerned, there is no merit. On perusal of the Award, it is apparent that the findings are based on the evidence produced. Such a finding is not open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitutioa As far as the question of effectiveness of the order of dismissal of the Labour Court from its date is concerned, a reference be made to two decisions of the Supreme Court i.e. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. etc. etc. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others, GUJARAT STEEL TUBE CO LTD V/S GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAJDOOR SABHA, 1980 AIR(SC) 1896. In para 152 it was observed that void dismissal is just void and does not exist. If the Tribunal, for the first time, passes order recording a finding of misconduct and thus breathes life into the dead shell of the Management's order, pre-dating of the nativity does not arise. In Des Raj Gupta vs. Industrial Tribunal IV Lucknow, 1990 AIR(SC) 2174. In para 9 of the judgment, relying upon the earlier case; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. held as under:- "If the order of punishment passed by the management is declared illegal and the punishment is upheld subsequendy by a labour tribunal. The date of dismissal cannot relate back to the date of the illegal order of the employer." That being the position, Kala Singh would be deemed to be in service upto November 14,1990, when the Labour Court passed the order of termination. Upto that date Kala Singh would be entitled to his wages.
(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed. The Award of the Labour Court is modified. The petitioner will get wages prior to the date of the Award. The same would be paid within a period of three months.;