- (1.) THIS intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 09.2005 as passed in CWP No. 1420/2003 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellants against the award dated 22.09.2000 as made in Labour Case No. 264/1998 whereby the Labour Court, Sriganganagar, after disapproving the termination of services of the workman-respondent No.1, directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of reference notification. Put in brief, the relevant background aspects are that the respondent No. 1, who had been working as Beldar with the appellant Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division, Sardulshahar, District Sriganganagar, raised an industrial dispute questioning termination of his services with effect from 05.12.1988 whereupon, a reference came to be made by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner on 23.02.1996. The reference case was later on transferred to the Labour Court, Sriganganagar; and the reference was ultimately answered in the impugned award dated 22.09.2000. Of course, a question regarding delay in raising the dispute was posed by the appellants but, on this score, the Labour Court did not consider it justified to decline the relief to the workman after finding that he had regularly been pursuing his case; and that he earlier raised the dispute through the union but, finding no relief, himself took up the proceedings whereupon the reference was ultimately made by the Government. As regards the question referred, the Labour Court found that termination of services of the workman had been in violation of the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act of 1947') after finding that the employer had failed to establish serving of notice or payment of compensation. Accordingly, while answering the reference in favour of the workman, the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of the reference notification.
(2.) The learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the award so made by the Labour Court after finding it to be a case of finding on facts based on the material available on record as regards non- compliance of the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The learned Single Judge also observed that the objection regarding delay in raising the dispute had been duly considered and rightly rejected by the Labour Court after it was found that the workman had been regularly pursuing the matter. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 02.09.2005. Hence, this appeal. This intra-court appeal was entertained after condoning the delay on 16.08.2007. Thereafter, on 26.10.2007, it was given out that the respondent No.1 had already been reinstated. A co- ordinate Bench, after taking note of this fact, stayed operation of the rest of the award until disposal of this appeal. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and having examined the material placed on record, we are unable to find any case of jurisdictional error on the part of the Labour Court, Sriganganagar insofar the award of reinstatement as made in favour of respondent No.1 is concerned. The finding that the termination in question had been in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 is essentially a finding on facts, rendered after due appreciation of the material on record. The learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere in such a finding for no case of jurisdictional error being made out. Similarly, the objection regarding delay in raising of dispute had rightly been rejected by the Labour Court and by the learned Single Judge as being meritless particularly when it was found that the workman-respondent No.1 had been regularly pursuing his matter and earlier attempted to raise the dispute through union. It has not been a case of total inaction or such a gross or inordinate delay wherefor the workman would have been declined the relief altogether. Moreover, there appears no reason to consider interference in the part of the award impugned regarding reinstatement where the admitted position is that the workman-respondent No.1 has already been reinstated and this material part of award has already been given effect to. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly to the fact that the respondent No.1 had otherwise not worked with the appellants for the period in question, granting of back wages from the date of notification of the reference does not appear justified.
(3.) IN fact, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- workman has, in all fairness, not pressed on this aspect of the relief of back wages as granted by the Labour Court. In the given circumstances, it appears just and proper to modify the award in question to the extent of annulment of grant of 50% back wages. However, it does appear appropriate to observe that having been reinstated and having hitherto continued in service, the respondent No.1 would be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with law. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above with modification of the award impugned to the extent of annulment of grant of back wages; and with the observations foregoing. No costs.;