Delhi High Court
Management Of Cantonment Board vs Shri Jakir Hussain on 17 October, 2006
Author: M Goel
Bench: M Goel
JUDGMENT
Manju Goel, J.
1. This writ petition challenges an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (`CGIT' in short) on 16th August, 2004 in Industrial Dispute No. 4 of 1994.
2. The impugned award has been passed by the CGIT on a reference made to it by the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-13012/8/92/IR (DU) Central Government dated 16th December, 1993. The term of reference mentioned in the letter is as under:
Whether the action of the Management of Cantonment Board, Meerut, in terminating the services of Shri Jakir Hussain, S/o Shri Babo Jamshed, Beldar w.e.f. 22.3.1986 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
3. In its award, the CGIT has held that respondent had worked for 240 days and that his termination from service has been done without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also granted reinstatement to the respondent workman with effect from 22nd March, 1986 and has directed that in case the workman is not reinstated during one month from publication of the award, he will be entitled to get an interest of 10% on the back wages due from 22nd March, 1986.
4. The main issue in this case is with respect to the date on which the services of the respondent was terminated. It is agreed to by the petitioner that the respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis as Labour in the Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt. in March, 1985.
5. During the proceedings before the CGIT, the petitioner admitted that the respondent had worked for 197 days from April, 1985 to November, 1985. The respondent produced a copy of the muster roll attested by a notary public showing that he had worked also in the month of January, 1986. The petitioner did not rebut that document by producing the original muster roll. Thus, the CGIT held that the management's case is found to be false and held that the respondent had worked for 240 days. There is nothing to show that this finding of the Industrial Tribunal is perverse. Even the list of 197 days appeared to have been prepared by ignoring the weekly holidays in between. Therefore, the management/petitioner has not given the complete picture of the total number of working days of the respondent. The respondent having worked for more than 240 days was entitled to the protection of Sections 25-F and 25-G. That having not been complied with, his termination has to be found to be bad in law.
6. The second issue in this case is whether the CGIT's award of reinstatement with full back wages can be upheld. By now it is a settled principle of law that reinstatement is not the invariable relief in all cases of wrongful termination. The respondent was not a regular employee. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. , the respondent could not have asked for regularisation. In case he is reinstated with full back wages, it will only amount to regularisation of respondent's services which will be violative of the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, no ground has been made out for grant of back wages as there is no proof on record to show that the respondent has remained unemployed throughout this period.
7. Hence, the respondent is only entitled to some compensation for the wrongful termination. The respondent was only a Beldar and at the relevant time he was earning only around Rs. 13/- per day.
8. The compensation that can be awarded should only have relevance to the period for which the respondent may have been forced to remain unemployed while looking for another job.
9. In the case of State of M.P. and Ors. v. Arjun Lal Rajak , the Supreme Court awarded compensation for termination which was wrongful on account of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
10. Keeping in view the wages payable to the petitioner at the relevant point of time, a compensation of Rs. 7,000/- (Rs. Seven thousand only) would be adequate. The award is set aside.
