In a writ petition challenging an award for illegal retrenchment, the High Court observed that 50% back wages were not arbitrary given the petitioner's three years of service and semi-skilled nature of the job.
The challenge to the award limiting back wages to 50% was 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civl Writ Petition No.10557 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 20, 2011.
Sarvjit Singh ..... Petitioner
versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II and another ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
The petitioner workman seeks modification of the Award dated 6.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) to the extent that payment of back wages has been restricted to 50% though he has been reinstated with continuity of service.
The petitioner-workman was appointed as a Nut Operator on 14.12.1996. His services were allegedly terminated w.e.f. 28.11.1998 without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner sent a demand notice and in response thereto, the Management sent a notice to him on 1.12.1998 that he was absenting from duty w.e.f. 26.11.1998. The Tribunal on appreciation of
CWP No.10557 of 2011 [2]
the material on record did not accept the plea taken by the Management and has held that it was a case of illegal retrenchment without complying with Section 25-F of the Act. Consequently, the Management has been directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service alongwith 50% of the back wages. The petitioner contends that he ought to have been given the full back wages.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and pursued the
record.
Ordinarily, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in the matter of grant of back wages calls for no interference unless a clear case of any perverse finding of fact is made out. The petitioner hardly served the Management for a period of three years when he is alleged to have been retrenched. Taking into consideration the total length of service rendered by the petitioner, the award of 50% back wages especially when owing to the semi skilled nature of his job, it can be safely presumed that the petitioner while out of service, must have engaged himself in some alternative job. The grant of 50% back wages is neither arbitrary nor illegal which may warrant interference of this Court.
Dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court was justified in limiting back wages to 50% instead of full back wages upon illegal retrenchment.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's discretion on the quantum of back wages.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sarvjit Singh
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II
Another
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
