- (1.) This petition seeks quashing of impugned award dated 22.8.2006, Annexure P.8.
(2.) On 21.9.2006, following order was passed: We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the paper book and the award dated August 22, 2006, under challenge, copy Annexure P.8. We do not find any infirmity in the findings returned by the Labour Court by virtue of which it has been held that the management has violated the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the admitted case that the workman has worked for 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of termination of his service. It is also admitted case that the appointment was made on 89 days basis in the first instance and that this process was adopted for four extensions and that this act on the part of the management amounts to unfair labour practice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that so far as payment of full back wages is concerned, the same is not sustainable as the workman has neither pleaded nor claimed that he was not gainfully employed during the interregnum. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment in re: Kendrya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. v/s. SC Sharma, 2005 II LLJ 201. Notice of motion for 11.1.2007 with regard to back wages only. Payment of back wages only shall remain stayed, which shall be subject to the compliance of Sec. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, till the reinstatement is granted to the workman.
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The matter was gone into by this Court in Pala Ram v/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Ors. CWP No. 5070 of 2005 decided on 3.7.2007, wherein it was observed: ...Trend of recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was noticed in a recent DB judgment of this Court in CWP No. 4980 of 2005 (Rajinder Singh v/s. Presiding Officer and Ors.), decided on 28.3.2006 as follows: We may notice some of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors. v/s. : [1997]3SCR368 , it was observed that concept of 'retrenchment' could not be stretched to disengagement of daily wagers. In Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s. : (2005)ILLJ1084SC , it was observed that completion of 240 days of continuous service may not by itself be a ground for directing regularisation of services, particularly in a case when the workman has not been appointed in accordance with rules. Reference was also made to earlier decisions. In General Manager, Haryana Roadways v/s. : (2005)IIILLJ4SC , it was observed that there was no rule of thumb that in every case where Industrial Tribunal gave a finding that termination was in violation of Sec. 25F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. Factors like method of selection, nature of appointment etc. should be weighed and balanced. One of the important factors was the length of service, which had been rendered. In Allahabad Jal Sansthan v/s. : (2005)IILLJ847SC , it was held that Labour Court is entitled to grant relief having regard to facts and circumstances of each case. In para 16, it was noticed that earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking the view that on dismissal being set aside, reinstatement with back wages must follow, could not be followed and it was necessary to develop a pragmatic approach by arriving at a golden mean. In UP State Brassware Corpn. Ltd and Anr. v/s. : (2006)ILLJ496SC , it was observed that no precise formula can be laid down as to when full back wages should be allowed and back wages should not be granted mechanically. In para 43, changes brought about by decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalisation, privatisation and outsourcing were noticed. Reference was also made to judgment in Rattan Singh v/s. Union of India and Anr. : (1997)11SCC396 , Para 3, wherein consolidated compensation of Rs. 25000/ -was awarded instead of back wages and reinstatement.;