- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the denial of back wages vide award dated 25.03.1992 (Annexure P -1) while the benefit of reinstatement was given. The Labour Court, vide the award in question, came to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were abruptly terminated on 18.10.1985 and he had been appointed as a Clerk on 19.01.1984. A demand notice dated 14.08.1987 was also served stating that the principle of last come first go was not adopted. The claim of the management that workman was appointed on the post of clerk with a stipulation to pass the type test was rejected on the ground that the advertisement dated 11.07.1982 never prescribed for such stipulation.
(2.) THE condition was inserted in the appointment letter later and the services of the workman could not be terminated on that account and accordingly, reinstatement was directed. On the issue of back wages, reliance was placed upon the award passed in Vijay Pal Singh vs. Haryana State Co -operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, which is also the present management. It was noticed that no relief was given and even in Gurdial Singh vs. Haryana State Co -operative Land Development Bank Ltd., relief was not granted. Eventually, the Apex Court, vide order dated 04.12.1990, directed that employment would be given from 01.01.1991 without any arrears of salary from the date of removal. Accordingly, the relief of back wages was also denied to the workman. The relevant paragraphs read as under: - "16. Next question to be determined is as to what relief should be granted to the workman. Management has produced copy of award dated 28 -10 - 88 given by Labour Court, Rohtak in a similar case, titled Vijay Pal Singh vs. Haryana State Co -operative Lan Development Bank Ltd., Chandigarh. Vijay Pal Singh was held not entitled to any relief vide award dated 28 -10 -88. Copy of another award dated 2 -11 -88 given by Labour Court, Rohtak, in Ref. No. 59 of 1987 titled Gurdial s/o Shri Shiv Narain Vs. Haryana State Co -operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Chandigarh, has also been produced. Gurdial Singh's case was also similar with the case of his workman (Dhoop Singh). Gurdial was not awarded any relief by the Labour Court, Rohtak, who observed that termination of services was fully justified. The said Gurdial challenged the said award by filing Civil Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court, as evident from the photo copy of CWP No. 11666 of 1988. Gurdial's matter came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court (arising out of spl. leave petition (Civil) No. 8366 of 1989 titled 'Gurdial Singh vs. Haryana State Co -operative Land Development Bank and other). The order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh's case read as under: - "In a connected matter Review Petition ( C) No. 152 of 1990 (in Special Leave Petition (C ) No. 8091 of 1989, an order to the following effect has been made on 4th December, 1990. The operative part of it provides: "...the petitioner should be permitted to be taken over by way of re -employment from 1 -1 -1991 in the same post which he held prior to removal but he would not be entitled to claim any arrears of salary from the date of removal till his re -employment. The petitioner shall be treated at par with the other employees who have now been reinstated."
(3.) IT is not disputed that the matter in similar to the present one and that order should govern the present case also. Accordingly, the order under appeal in set -aside; the writ petition in the High Court allowed and the Respondent is directed to take appellant on reemployment from 1 -3 -1991 in the same post which he held prior to his removal. However, appellant would not be entitled to claim any arrears of salary from the date of removal till the date of re -employment. In other respects, the appellant shall be treated at par with other employees who have now been reinstated. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 17. Aforesaid order passed by the Apex Court has a binding effect on all concerned. Because Gurdial Singh's matter was similar to the present one therefore, this workman can be granted only that relief which was granted to Gurdial Singh. In view of aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, workman cannot take advantage of judgment dated 26 -9 -1989 delivered by Hon'ble High Court in case of Sat Pal and Dilbag vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Managing Director, HSCLDB, though Sat Pal and Dilbag's case was also similar to the present one. 18. Relying upon order dated 4 -2 -91 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the workman is entitled for reinstatement on re -employment w.e.f. 1 -5 - 92 in the same post which he (Dhoop Singh) held prior to his removal. He would not be entitled to claim any arrears of salary from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement by way of re -employment. In other respects, the workman shall be treated by the management at par with other employees who were employed along with him. Reference stands answered accordingly." Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that back wages should be a normal rule and placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Lakhan vs. State of Punjab and others,2002 3 RSJ 72. A perusal of the said judgment would go on to show that the Division Bench noticed that it was only in absence of extra ordinary reason for making a deviation from the normal rule of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, relief could be declined. In the present case, the Labour Court has given valid reasons for denying the relief and it was noticed that similarly situated employees had been directed to be reinstated but they were not entitled to claim arrears of salary from the period of removal till their reemployment. Recently, the Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwae vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and others, 2013 4 SCT 716has come to the conclusion that the adjudicating authority or the Court may taken into consideration the length of service and the fact that workman is entitled to the back wages and the said power is to be exercised under Section 11 -A of the Act and merely because reinstatement was a consequence, neither back wages or continuity of service is to be granted as a natural consequence of such reinstatement.;