ORDER R. J. Kochar, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 1.8.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court. Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 216 of 1991 directing the Petitioners to reinstate the Respondent workman with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 1.2.1990.
2. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent workman was initially appointed in a casual clerical vacancy from 18.2.1981 and thereafter she was given the work of a part-time sweeper on monthly basis of Rs. 650/ - per month from June 1981. According to the Respondent workman though the label of Part time Sweepeer was put on her by the petitioner she was doing the work of a full time clerk and not the work of a part time sweeeper. I am not required to decide this controversy as to whether she was doing the work of a clerk or a sweeper as the same is the subject matter of another writ petition.
3. According to the Petitioner the Respondent workman stopped reporting for work from 1.2.1990 and that they had not terminated her services. According to the Respondent workman, however, the petitioner had terminated her from employment w.e.f. 1.2.1990 for no reason and without passing any orders. She therefore raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. According to the respondent workman from 1981 she was continuously in employment of the Petitioner and that her services came to be abruptly discontinued with effect from 1.2.1990. The grievance of the Respondent workman was that this termination was totally illegal and improper and that she was entitled to be reinstated with full backwages and continuity of service. Both the parties adduced their evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence and facts from record held that while the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 1.2.1990 by the Petitioner and that she was not allowed to report for duty on and from 1.2.1990. The Labour Court has held that the workman was not allowed to join her duties and therefore, her services were terminated without any notice or without any enquiry. The Labour Court has therefore held that the said termination of the workman was illegal and improper and that she was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. Her last drawn wages were Rs. 650/ - per month. The Labour Court in its exercise of the jurisdiction has adjudicated that the services of the respondent workman were illegally terminated by the petitioner on and from 1.2.1990 and that she was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. I do not find any infirmity in the Award. It is not possible to interfere with the said Award under extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my opinion the Award of the Labour Court is based on the appreciation of facts and evidence and requires no interference.
4. I do not find any impropriety orillegality in the Award of the Labour Court. There is nothing on record to show why the Respondent should not be awarded full back wages as a normal rule, when the order of termination is held to be illegal and improper. At the time of admission of this petition rule was restricted only in respect of back wages to the extent of 50%. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 9.12.1997. Shri Vaidya has submitted that the Respondent has been reinstated and she has been paid 50% back wages. Since I have held that the Respondent workman is entitled to full back wages. The petitioners are directed to pay the balance 50% back wages within four weeks from today. The Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with costs which is quantified as Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Petitioners to the Respondent workman along with balance of 50% back wages.
5. All parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.