Bombay High Court
Chief Executive ... vs Namdeo Sindhu Raskar on 15 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4213 OF 1995
The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad,
Ahmednagar - PETITIONER
VERSUS
Namdeo Sidhu Raskar,
At and Post : Mali Babhulgaon,
Tq. Pathardi,
Dist.Ahmednagar - RESPONDENT
Mr.S.T.Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Shelke with Mr.A.S.Shelke, Advocate for the respondent.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 15/09/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 21/07/1994 by
which the Labour Court has allowed Ref. (IDA) No.4/1991 thereby
granting reinstatement with continuity and full back wages to the
respondent.
2. This Court, while admitting the petition, stayed the direction to
pay back wages.
khs/SEPT.2016/4213-d
3. I have heard the strenuous submissions of Mr.S.T.Shelke,
learned Advocate for petitioner and Mr.A.S.Shelke, learned Advocate
for the respondent.
4. The Labour Court has arrived at a finding on facts. It has
concluded that the respondent was working in continuous service.
Section 25-F and 25-G of the I.D.Act was not complied with. The
reference was, therefore, allowed considering that the termination of
the respondent from 15/10/1987 amounted to an illegal
retrenchment. The petitioner has reinstated the respondent on
18/11/1995 and since then he has been working. It is stated that he
may have attained the age of superannuation since he would be 63
years old today.
5. In the above backdrop, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the direction of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with
continuity in service.
6. The petitioner has strenuously argued that the Labour Court
has granted back wages as a matter of course without there being
any evidence of unemployment on record. The last drawn wages of
the respondent at the time of his termination were Rs.535/- per
khs/SEPT.2016/4213-d
month.
7. Learned Advocate for the respondent has strenuously
contended that once the termination is held to be illegal, the
employer must suffer the effects of its illegal action and hence full
back wages have been rightly granted.
8.
It appears that the back wages as granted by the Labour Court
from the date of termination till the reinstatement of the respondent
would be roughly about Rs.52,000/-. This Court had stayed the
direction to pay back wages.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of J.K.Synthetics
Ltd., Vs. K.P.Agrawal and another, [(2007) 2 SCC 433] has concluded
that unless the employee steps into the witness box to lead evidence
on unemployment, his efforts for seeking alternate employment and
his continuance in unemployment, back wages should not be
mechanically granted. Similarly, in the matter of Nicholas Piramal
India Ltd., Vs. Hari Singh 2015(2) CLR 468, the Apex Court
concluded that 50% back wages would be an appropriate relief for
reducing the rigours of unemployment.
khs/SEPT.2016/4213-d
10. Considering the law as above, this petition is partly allowed.
The direction of the Labour Court granting reinstatement and
continuity in service is sustained. The direction to pay full back
wages is modified and the back wages (50%) are quantified at
Rs.26,000/- which the petitioner shall pay to the respondent within a
period of 12 (twelve) weeks from today.
11.
Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/SEPT.2016/4213-d
