Writ petition challenging Industrial Court's order denying backwages in termination case. Bench affirmed concurrent factual findings denying backwages. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition No. 3869 of 200 3
Kewal Chand Gaikwad, S/o Shri Tulchand, aged about 55 years, Resident of village- Murmunda, Post- Murmunda, Tahsil – Dhamadha, Distt. Durg (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/SAIL : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
08/11/2017
(1) The petitioner was terminated from the services by respondent No.1 by its order dated 28.3.1987, which he challenged before the Labout Court by filing application under Section 31 (3) of the C.G. Industrial Relation Act. The Labour Court, after due enquiry, directed for reinstatement of the petitioner without backwages, which was further challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, by its impugned order dated 26.7.2003, affirmed the order of Labour Court holding that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement but he is not entitled for backwages, against which instant writ petition has been filed questioning the same.
(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that impugned order non-granting backwages is unsustainable and bad in law, which is liable to be set aside.
2
(3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and gone through the record with utmost circumspection.
(4) The Labour Court as well as Industrial Court both have coucurrently held that petitioner is not entitled for backwages, such a finding is the finding of fact based on material available on record, in which I do not find any illegality warranting interference by this Court in the instant writ petition.
(5) Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
D/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the Labour Court and Industrial Court regarding non-grant of backwages.
Kewal Chand Gaikwad
Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bhilai Steel Plant
The Industrial Court, C.G.
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
