Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ...

on 28 January, 2004

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 28 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004 (102) FLR 715, (2004) 137 PLR 615
Author: A K Mittal
Bench: A K Mittal
JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of CWP Nos. 2985 of 1984 and 434 of 1985 as they arise out of the
same award of the Labour Court dated 30.12.1983 by which reinstatement of the workman was
ordered but back wages were denied.
2. The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (for short PRTC) has filed Civil Writ Petition No.
2985 of 1984 challenging the reinstatement of the workman whereas C.W.P. No. 434 of 1985 has
been filed by the workman questioning the denial of back wages to him.
3. The facts which led to the filing of the aforesaid two petitions are that the PRTC suspended the
workman from the service of bus driver on the basis of complaints and thereafter he was
charge-sheeted. The workman had been found guilty of misbehaviour during working hours while
he was under the influence of liquor. The workman was also found guilty of wailfully slowing down
the performance of work in the workshop and of failure to observe safety instructions. It is further
the allegation of the PRTC that the workman was found in possession of a knife while he was present
in the premises of the said Corporation. A departmental inquiry was held and charges against the
workman were proved and consequently his services were terminated.
4. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred under Section 10(1)(c) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) to the Labour Court, Patiala for adjudication. The
terms of the reference were as under: Whether termination of services of Sunder Singh, workman, is justified and in order? If not, to what
relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled?
5. The Labour Court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues;(1) Whether the services of the workman were terminated after holding a fair and proper enquiry?
(2) Whether the order of termination of the services of the workman is justified and in order?
(3) Relief.
6. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the workman had intentionally avoided to join enquiry
and the Inquiry Officer was thus justified in holding an ex parte enquiry and the enquiry was held in
a fair and proper manner. However, by invoking the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, the
Labour Court held that the order of termination of services of the workman was justified and in
order. The Labour Court further held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655131/

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 28 January, 2004

continuity of service but without back wages. This is how, both the sides, feeling dissatisfied, have
impugned award of the Labour Court in their respective petitions as indicated above.
7. A perusal of the record shows that the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat in this Court for
settlement between the parties. The order dated 29.10.2001 passed by the Lok Adalat reads as
under;"CWP No. 2985 of 1984 is filed by PRTC against the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court
dated 30.12.1983, by which reinstatement of the workman-respondent No. 2 was ordered but
payment of backwages to him was denied. PRTC questions the order of reinstatement, C.W.P. 434 of
1985 has been filed by the workman-petitioner questioning the same so far as denial of back wages
to him is concerned.
It is not in dispute that the workman was reinstated in service way back in the year 1984. There is no
ground whatsoever of re-opening the matter to deal with the question of reinstatement of the
workman. However, as regards payment of back wages, we feel that in the interest of justice PRTC the management petitioner in C.W.P. 2985 of 1984 should agree to payment of 50% of back wages to
the workman.
The matter is adjourned to 17.1.2002 to enable Mr. Harsh Aggarwal to get instructions with regard
to the above proposal and also to let us know to what compromise PRTC is agreeable and what are
its terms. A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. Harsh Aggarwal for necessary action."
8. It may be observed that the Lok Adalat in order to amicably settle the dispute between the parties
had recorded that 50% of the back wages would meet the ends of justice, without going into the
merits of the case. However, on 17.1.2002, as the learned counsel appearing for the PRTC had not
agreed to the proposed order dated 29.10.2001, the matter was sent back to this Court for decision.
It is, thus the matter is before me for adjudication on merits.
9. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
workman pointed out that the workman had been working in view of the status quo order dated
30.8.1984 passed by this Court, and he had since retired on attaining the age of superannuation. He
claimed that Civil Writ Petition No. 2985 of 1984 filed by the PRTC has thus, been rendered in
fructuous. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, leaned counsel appearing for the PRTC has not been able to
controvert the said assertion. Accordingly, Civil Writ Petition No. 2985 of 1984 in view of the
changed circumstances, as indicated above, is disposed of as infructuous.
10. So far as Civil Writ Petition No. 434 of 1985 is concerned, Mr. Vikas Singh learned counsel for
the petitioner-workman therein contended that once the Labour Court had set aside the order of
termination of service of the workman, it should have awarded back wages to the workman. Learned
counsel has placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Palace, Ambala City v.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr., (1979) 81 P.L.R. 720 in support of his this contention.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655131/

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 28 January, 2004

11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the PRTC submitted that the Labour Court had
rightly denied the back wages to the workman in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act.
The findings recorded during inquiry proceedings were upheld by the Labour Court but the order of
termination was set aside as in the opinion of the Labour Court, the punishment awarded to the
workman was not commensurate to the act of his proved misbehaviour. The counsel supported his
argument on the strength of a decision of the Supreme Court in Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank
Mariyadit v. Jag-dishchandra and Ors., (2001)3 Supreme Court Cases 332.
12. I have carefully examined the rival contentions of the parties. It would be expedient to advert to
the provisions contained in Section 11-A of the Act, which are to the following effect:"11 A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case
of discharge or dismissal of workman.- Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or
dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for
adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or
National Tribunal, as the case may be is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not
justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement
of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the
workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the
circumstances of the case may require;
Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal,
as the case may be shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in
relation to the matter."
13. The Labour Court by invoking the aforesaid provisions had reduced the quantum of punishment
awarded to the workman i.e., from termination of his service to reinstatement of the workman with
continuity of service, but without back wages. The Labour Court was of the opinion that the
punishment awarded to the workman was not commensurate with the charges against the
workman. The labour Court bad nowhere recorded any finding exonerating or absolving the
workman of the charges proved against him by the inquiry officer. On the other hand, the findings of
the inquiry officer have been affirmed by the Labour Court.
14. In Hari Palace case (supra), it was held that where services of the workman were held to be
illegally terminated, then he would be entitled to full back wages except for the period he was
gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That was not a case where provisions of Section
11-A of the Act were attracted. The Full Bench in the above said case was not considering the matter
where by invoking the provisions of Section 11-A the order of termination of services of the
workman was converted into that of reinstatement. In the instant case, the workman had not been
absolved from the charges levelled against him but only the quantum of punishment of termination
of service had been reduced and converted into that of reinstatement of the workman with
continuity of service but without back wages. The Full Bench decision in Hari Palace case (supra) is
thus of no help to the workman.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655131/

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 28 January, 2004

15. On the other hand, in Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit's case (supra), the Supreme Court
had held that where termination was set aside only on technical ground, the direction for granting
back wages could not be legally sustained. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the workman had
been rightly denied the grant of back wages.
No other point has been urged.
Resultantly, CWP No. 434 of 1985 is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in both
these petitions.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1655131/