Allahabad High Court
Jogendra Singh vs Presiding Officeer And Another on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32777 of 2000
Petitioner :- Jogendra Singh
Respondent :- Presiding Officeer And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- V.P.Mathur,S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
This writ petition assails the award made by Labour Court on 04.04.1998, published on 15.09.1998 in Adjudication Case No. 233 of 1992 to the extent that the full back wages has not been awarded and reinstatement in service along with only half of back wages has been awarded to the petitioner till the date of award.
Sri Rajesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was terminated from service by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as "UPSRTC") where he was working as Cleaner after a departmental inquiry was conducted. An industrial dispute was raised by petitioner and the matter was referred to Labour Court, Agra by State Government exercising power under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court made an award and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner along with 50% of the back wages from 27.11.1990 till the date of award and thereafter the petitioner was made entitle for his full wages. According to petitioner counsel, the allegation against petitioner was that he was carrying 8 bottles of liquor when he was apprehended at Fatehpur Sikri by Excise Inspector and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him but the Excise Inspector, Har Govind Singh never appeared before the Inquiry Officer nor before the Labour Court to prove the charges as alleged against the petitioner. He then contended that there was no independent eye-witness and once the petitioner was exonerated in the criminal case and the termination order was set aside, the Labour Court should have awarded full wages from 27.11.1990 onwards as no finding has been recorded as to why only 50% back wages was granted.
Per contra, Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for UPSRTC submitted that it was the discretion of the Labour Court to have awarded 50% of the back wages for the period and the same cannot be questioned by petitioner before this Court. Reliance has been placed upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya, (2002) 6 SCC 41. Relevant para 11 is extracted hereasunder:-
"11. Under Section 11-A as amended in 1971, the Industrial Tribunal is statutorily mandated, while setting aside the order of discharge or dismissal and directing reinstatement of the workman to consider the terms and conditions, subject to which the relief should be granted or to give such other relief to the workman including the award of any other punishment in lieu of the discharge or dismissal, as the circumstances of the case may require. The section is couched in wide and comprehensive terms. It vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of awarding proper punishment and also in the matter of the terms and conditions on which reinstatement of the workman should be ordered. It necessarily follows that the Tribunal is duty-bound to consider whether in the circumstances of the case, back wages have to be awarded and if so, to what extent."
I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was apprehended along with 8 bottles of liquor outside Fatehpur Sikri while he was on leave when he was waiting for bus. A departmental proceeding was initiated by UPSRTC after a charge-sheet was issued and departmental inquiry was conducted. The Excise Inspector, Har Govind Singh did not appear before the Inquiry Officer but on the report of the Inquiry Officer, services of the petitioner was terminated which was later on confirmed by the appellate authority. An industrial dispute was raised by petitioner and the Labour Court found that there was no eye-witness to the incident and he was already exonerated in criminal proceedings, thus, the case set up against the petitioner had no legs to stand and the termination order was set aside. The Labour Court while awarding back wages from the date of termination of services did not record any finding as to why 50% back wages was granted though no adverse finding was recorded against the petitioner.
Moreover, the Transport Corporation has not challenged the award made by the Labour Court and the petitioner was reinstated in service. Reliance placed by respondent counsel upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. (supra) makes it amply clear that discretion vests in Tribunal in the matter of awarding proper punishment and also in the matter of terms and conditions the reinstatement of workman should be ordered. The Apex Court while holding the discretion of the Tribunal further held that Tribunal is duty bound to consider whether in the circumstances of the case, back wages have to be awarded and if so, to what extent.
Thus, it is clear that the power of the Tribunal is not discretionary and while granting or refusing to grant back wages it has to record reasons. In the instant case, though, the Tribunal had directed for reinstatement of petitioner but only with 50% of back wages without giving any reasoning as to why it had curtailed the back wages to that extent.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that once the Labour Court has made out a case that the termination order was bad and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner, there arose no occasion for granting only 50% of the back wages. Once no reason has been accorded by the Tribunal, the judgment of the Apex Court could not come into rescue of the Transport Corporation where the Apex Court had clarified that the Tribunal is duty bound to consider the circumstances while granting back wages.
In view of above, writ petition succeeds to the extent that petitioner is entitled for full back wages from 27.11.1990 till the date of award. The award dated 04.04.1998 is modified to such extent.
Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
Order Date :- 13.3.2023
V.S.Singh
