- (1.) On the basis of a reference of dispute relating to termination of the service of the petitioner, the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kota passed the impugned award dated 30.12.80. The learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court found that the termination of the service of the petitioner amounts to retrenchment under Sec. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also found that there has been a violation of Sec. 25F (b) of the 1947 Act. Consequently, he ordered reinstatement of the petitioner. Regarding the relief of back wages, the learned Presiding Officer took notice of the fact that against the termination of the service of the petitioner brought about by order dated 20.2.68, the petitioner was prosecuting ill-conceived remedies for a period of six and a half years and a reference has been made on 6.8.75. It also took notice of the fact that the petitioner was gainfully employed during the interim period. Taking into consideration the entire evidence which was placed before him, the learned Presiding Officer ordered payment of compensation amounting equal to wages for a period of one year but at the same time ordered that the period between 25.2.68 till the date of award shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority and annual grade increments payable to the petitioner.
(2.) In this writ petition the petitioner has claimed that once it has been found that termination of his service was brought about in clear violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Sec. 25F(b) of 1947 Act, the only course open for the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court was to have ordered the reinstatement with full wages and consequential benefits.
(3.) Shri Bhargava has argued that there was no justification for denying the relief of full back wages, seniority and counting of the entire period for the purpose of annual grade increments. He submitted that if the petitioner had prosecuted the remedy before the civil court, it was none of his fault.;