Karnataka State Printing Press Workers ... vs The Management Of Jai Dayal Kapoor ... on 2 May, 2012

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka State Printing Press Workers ... vs The Management Of Jai Dayal Kapoor ... on 2 May, 2012

Bench: Aravind Kumar

K...)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG$..«(}RE

BATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MAY; 2o1V2__ '  ff  ~

BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  '  

W.P.NO,17014/2-OQ6 {L;:s'_E'R)

C/W.  "
W.P§NCh13386/2GOE5'V{L»T_'E

R) &  

W'.P,NO.NO. 1,.-7:45 1 ' '

'sAf'.P.NQ. 1?'G£4~/21006 ::;:,:§ER }' '  '

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE; 'iPRI}ETIN.G«.i?.RESS';'  '
WORKERS Assoc1A":1_C;:N, NG..23,,%'2_,  ' 
18? MAIN ROAD--;».SES_HAiD;R1P'aJ.RAM§  

BANGALORE~560 0:20, M _  .
REPRESEENTED BY :"i:s= -» '   ~
UNI'? sECRETgaR&"-- R§V'E]§\E§Z§:, E;;$_:;_~i';<. 
{B3 $R§§<:;$;.%U§§$;?i:;x1;:3:¥A;"&§ii3

Aégﬁfv .

?;:E"*§+;:s:§§§;@»é::«:§3:*§'~Q:?

 JAE §A'sf.';'--'i:L_?£ "'"*C2'@_R~;%§'3§$"§R§E3

_ %"«;~:s:>.a:;?2~3__~L _.  *
 §§:?:.N':'A §\::3iés"§R§A; gggga

- -..f§'-=.5«?§5-335» ' .
4 1§;az§::;A:=G§§A§'@@ 855
'w_§,§§§:E;3E?£§"€$ BY :33

" '-.E,:%§:Z_'?$":%§§; SR:2:::§@§g§x£e::~;A§§ E§APG€ZZ>R.

...?E'§T£'§GNER

mR§S?@E'=§§E?*~§'T



{BY $RiSC%£'y'IASHEE*iARg AER FOR f3RE.S.N.I\z'ﬁjR'E'HY ASSTS,
ASVSA} 

THIS 15%'? IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 225 ANS 

CONSTITUTION OF' II\II:>IA PRAYING TO QUASH 'EfE:"E*Z'«.;!§I'8V:I-'5u'?I[)"«
OATEII 23.04.2005 (ANNEXAA HEREIN) PASSED" BY'TII'I_L: 
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN RE'.E':'*NO'.9;'2UOG -. "
PERTAINING TO POINT NOT AND..~~C«.RANT VRE3L1EF'._f,OIT
REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL BACK WAGES; CONTINUITT 
SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL"BENEFITE3 
IENKATESH INSTEAD OF' CLOSURE "--AC€)MPEN¥t§AT1ON"; III 

RESPECT OF POINT N02. AND ETC 2

WPINOI13386/2005 {L~TER:)'~~..'_ 

BETVVEEEN :

THE: MANAOE.MENT§O:<é..V%»i. ._ =:   
JAI DAYAL KIA.POOR'IND;V_ST}?IE§S;'   
NO/L72~B~1, i   .   I-
PEENYA INDU$TRmL"ARI;A,  _  "

I2TH <:ROss,;IvI3I>IA::a:E,   "
I3ANOALORE':,56Q 055-", 'V  '
REPRESENTED B35118 ' " ,  
PARTNER, SRLIIIIAIIAAAIIIOIIIAII KIXPOGR. ,H?ETITIOIxIgR

{BY SRII$4<:>I*~;IA;sIIEVI<;;Iz*-I:I't;'  §'GR SR§.S.E'*€,EVEURE"E{¥' I5ISSE'3

E' 3 V."    I  ..... ..

§IE'€V§:, '  "

 " ,§RI.gIR'.':€IA;::IIII §'::;:§
'  §1'O.$RI.I?;IAAAA;<:?::A$r'HI§rA SETTEZ
'IAAAJOAI A

"   PIITELAPTAA SIIIIIOIIAIOI
 : OIAIIIAIAOTIIITEI
 _ *IIIAOA$A;2IOIAA P8831
 . '§_ ,5§"€E'§.{:R'{E}$S§
  I  E:AI"E{§§I§;@RE~§§€} 8'23, I..R£;S?Q?€QE«N'E'



CA.)

{BY SRLEi.S.SUBRAHR?IﬁNYA§ ABVWE

THIS WP 13 FELED UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND 22:? i>§"'Y§'E.E

CGNSTITUTION OF' INDEX PRAYING TO QUASH THE 
PQWARD DATED 22.31.2004» VIBE ANNEX~H   
N048/96 BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL  V 'C:'O4ULR_T;  

BANGALORE,   ._
W.RNO.N0.1?451f2006 (LATER)
BETWEEN:

SRLB.R.RAGHU PAL
BAGALAGUNTE,

NAGASANDRA POST,

13TH CROSS, -- _ 5 ~  
BANGALORE-560 0273.-V  " " ._"-._..,P.,ajj1*::1oNER

{BY   

AND: %
THE MANAGEMENT    - .

JA1 DAYAL KAPOQR §NDU:3'f'R1EEE_ 

NC).4~?2~B-19  .   ._ 

?EENYA iND1:§sTR1ALvAR§;A;~--.  "

221*: CRos;sﬁA; PEASE,

Ssm§ALQR$»;56G4A%_S§8   ..... H -

RfE§_PRE1SE:?§TE'}3 Bfvifﬁ

?AETNE<:Ri, »3;{:.?4AA;AA3AAAQgA3§ A:A?G@R ",RE§?®§'§§EE'=E'?

:i <._{§E":' A;*§é:¢SQAAA$§§"f5:?;AR§ Am: ESE SR1.$.l'\$I3a%E§R'EH'%' ASSETS.
 A:;:za,; A ~ A 

 ""'T%~£ES 'VVE? :8 E339 EEEKEBER ARTECAE 22% %§ 22'? C3? TEE

{ '{§C?§§.STE"i"U?§8N GE' EAESEZA ?R§3§fﬁ'€C% '§'@ 83? EASESE THE GREEEZR
 '§?§EZ*E';'  RASSEE EN §.§§'€&48f§§ B§§i,'E§ §'.7,2¢2$S3
''  BY '§}§E3 ﬁ:S§§'§'EGE'€§;i EEEGUR C333? 0}? E33; §A'E'E§

 Ei'l2,,2i'§G23 ANS Q2]/£$}€ '§EiE ;'3§xrV&R§ EFEEEE ANN§;X~B PEASSED EN



E.B.NQ,48;'95 BATES 22.} 1,2084 HGLDING THAT THE
RESPONDENT CEEMFANY WAS CLOSE}? FROM 3i.1.200C!~'AND
GRANTING CLQSUREZ COMPENSATION TO THE: PE'FI'E'E€I)N;E}R.._' 

THESE WRIT' PETITIONS HAVING BEEN 
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.03.2012 AND coMu5rG,0'N'L-F*0F:--T 
PRONOUNCEMENT OE' ORDER THIS DAY, THE..C.Q_I3.R'£'--.§\/LAD}:' . "

THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

vvnt Peﬁﬁon Pﬁx17451/Zﬂéﬁ zﬁui @vmtW§¢ﬁﬁon A NO.1338€~/2005 are filed' Iﬁéinégement respectively questioning passed by E Additional in ID.

NO.518/1996?":.::§I;;aE[iS€d by Workman has been "setti::1g asids arder of ierminatien (date sf dismissal] and é§.;'€:¢:Vt§ng':L€%:§ __::;:;%g_:":ag é::1a>3::§; is pay €09/Q Qf back wages {mm

22..i§_}9V§_$' date §f Clesuré anﬁ pa}? 3}} é§:§€q:;.é :§;iié,E b€E,'1€f§iS 66% aszd pay the siesasre '"§<}:'::::'€%?;'1sL&ti'{;2:{:' as $12 33,.§§2!:}{}® as par secﬁag 2%???' §f '4 ' ' ~ " i§1:é_§- 1_::'d_€:';~:'::°§a§ §isp:_,1':5s AC£a yé/N,ﬂ,,,.

8%.

V" ' V ..__:*€:«3.}§éC':§v& gésadiggsb (J7

2. Writ Pﬁtition N6.1?O}é%;'2GO6 is prsfarred by Werkers Asssciation against award dated passed by I Additienal Labour Cmzrt, * Reference No.9/2000, Wher€:uI1de1f» '"i"€,'ffi'1"€2}:43'L.¢VZ1"{%'4"b_E2.€f1.

accepted in part and order of is get aside by directing the 'péhy czmiy 60% of back xvégas of '€111 31.1.2000 and pay__a11 benefits at 60% and alsg as 01:1 31,O1,2OO0Vv_g,§' of the Industrial Disputes V RE; wRI1*«:%P;:«:j'r1fr10fN% 1'?014f2G06:

V g*'0\;sr::m€1*:i by its @663' dazeé . "E>'é;Z1iQ5?21(};QG :t23~3%':f.--;%d the igguas as giaieﬁ in 3135 Gfﬂﬁf fer '"'a;afij::§ic5,:§$n».«§}; {he jurégéiéiionai La':3§:::2r C$m'":. ﬁiar " .," ,}S&ﬁ_*vic*e_'%<;af':'10*£§$é::, bail': gaﬁies gpgaarsﬁ agzé ﬁéeﬁ éhsér E: was ihﬁ semantéam sf fihs OW Warkers Asmciaéien béfers Laban? Ceurt ihat management: was met: paying statutory minimum..§2ag3s nor giving Statutory benefits such as PF, ESL .

and iI1iI':iaHy 1rnaI1agemer1t evinced ixltafest .t':cV)"'i"&3:A:»~ip1ii'«=: _"_t»I:1€._V A' dispute in Vi€W' of letter submitfed Association but Started harassixjfgé» an§1'~.ViC.i:Tiini ssi4i91'fg' sthe V workers and suspend€:§..._'_ th'ém " 'AsSVt$ciati0nV President Sri R. of which, workers observéﬁ: It was also contended and fcrced the werkmen an illegal and unjustifiéd ieckaut with' u§ff}e 55:" and simultaneously d;§'is':::3§ss<::$E'<. 3:3. .__R,Vé'::i<:..2:..%iash miiheui Zhaiding a enquiry egizﬁ' 353 Eff: ihe 30¢}: 5111:, magzagemegfz 7,_ '<<:;:i+':i :33': -§g§.e§df~ ~E§:?f..--€h€ reqaagi: 0f the vaerkas agseaéaiign.

;j§spa:ie wag Esjsﬁé bafare 'ihe §G§'i€'iﬁi3;§§Gﬁ Gffissr §*:%f; '%§iu:*a af sggcéiiatian sffsytg E"€f€f€}"i{3$ '%,?V3;S maée %3};:<. 'L¢2%§§r@p:*:aie Ggiséramégé ag géasééd §:1€z§i1*:sf:><3'%2$§ g 'fa :3'?

Hewever, management denied the avermems maée in claim statement by eontending: Petitiener ~ Association is not a recognised Werkers ~ it has not declared lock out and ' operation from O1,02.2000 perma:i::1e:1éf:Iy closure notice dated 3O.1.2OOO;"'-1:6em§§1eye'eé.'_:e§§:%eVe'd' for 'V amicable settlement and . ;,f:;'i:c0r(1i'1"1§.' A €2{fer'ev' settled in respect of those employees refused to accept j%f:'V:iVe:'s'i«a1s0 contended that some employed by ihe managemefit "time and there is 110 relationship 'V and 'employee'; ether e:;:e;";::e::.:§L::.:::g{Ee in ﬁhe..:;:.1ai::: petitiozj was denied.

2§-,'§;e§eea:éf_v»-Ceziifi vzghiie examming ieeue $35.: maée 71:': ;*efere::ee:"";€§sV 'éiﬁe vsheither maeegemem '§2¥S'&S jueﬁféeé E13 Eeek eeiz 2:332:31 effeei free: G}.G2.:2;€3€}G'?

'eeféeiéeeeé rive} eeeieﬁiéene raemeiy the eeifzeniiieﬁ ef ihe 0:?» Workers Rssosisiisn ihst ii was s lack, as: and dis contention of the management that it was s <:10s1;si€§"~.s§:::)_d after analysing the evidence on record, Labs-1,1r'f found that as per the notice dated j;as._.tu EX.M28 issued by the nlanagement and further held that the xVQf}§:1.}:1an sad V been dismissed from seﬁfigs and {hers was ms compliance of Industrial Disputes Act, the order of dismissal to pay 60% back wages andilslss' E1: is is be abservsd at managsmssni has met q.idssiis:'2sd":hs ssrard sf the Labsug' Csuri in sé:{_fTsi::_ ss sf éhs Lsbssr Cssrt hsidisg srds:

d%sn::s_ss§_.-sf'f§:i:*i,Rﬁfs:'3§a:a':ssE*: ss ﬁisgaé ssd ss ssch .s 'Es ss ssisszi sf dscéssszg ths diszsésssﬁ sf sissisissh is cssssrssd has issssms insi. KO 5, It is ihe eententien Czf Sri.K.S&Subrama:1ya;§ Ehat as per the erder of reference dated.

{A:rmeXu1:'e--B), the Labour Court might to haife--- its finding to the said reference and' it 'fLQt V' enlarged the scope of reference Qught to have held as to evae justified in declaring and should. not have He would draw the fLe:'V.ihe"iéorder made by appropriate at Anne-xure~ C, aarhereurider been directed to remove Eeekeeui fert1'ﬁ{%i«ih " he eeentende {hat Labour Seuzég Vti§AéLve -------- --i::":p0r:e§ aihe firgdimgs given in a::éiEj_e'rLu;'efe:e§:1§"feA.:fggzmeiy is Ref.Ne.48;' 2996 ie ezﬁarge seejpe Q5 .;:'e:_fe.::ez3ee aiéii; answer ihe eame eeaérary ﬁe erzﬁe: e§.é*efe:*'er:ee, He eubmite £3232: §.E33G"i§E' Cezm: "5,,"_ge;:*§ee<i reiggiﬁg '§.§;§G§': the erder geaseeé in 399%, isghéeia is Empeymiesfeaie :2: $5,132: in '**'g"« fﬁyg/,,/~ 1, ms (:3 suppert af his submissmn he has relied upeﬁ the Judgmani: in the case of Delhi Ckjth 3: Genéral Ltci, Vs. Workmé-tr: and Qthers, reported in ~ 469 in particular paragraphs 16~~~&_ W€j1;1Civ.V ' elaborate his submissions by C0nie:_r1 d_ii1g ﬁ1é1'E..LE£'L) ?Z)'L1f'._ Court erred in restricting the ?:)f= to 50% and contends that xififh'}x1e1d the balance of 40% thatwas t--h§§"§€?Qf}<man atleast till 31:10.2000 that workmen was entitled till the date of reinstatemém; 0:' the case may be, 011 this gmund he Sé»€:Z§:;:\:V. fV0r4VAA._ai1§Wing cf the writ petitisn %%%%% 8% A ._'E'h91:g§:;.- i"€S§§1'}d€f:'€ is served and E'€§I'€S€ETii€d, '""§3§::é:*:._€"*;3f13,V€ézgipeareé GEE '$333835 £35 623% E'€$pQE1d€3:E':i, Tha '~. '«.Véi3;:g§ﬁ?V§:::A"ef e3bj€C'£i§§§§ ﬁiﬁd is §}€I";:i§€§, aizhgreiizz ii hag KR".__'9€é2:f:"C'a::t€:}d€€i by éhe E'€SpQE'Ed€I1i ~« magagsmsgt thagsi:

«kiw G11 aeeeun: ef empleyees unrest, strike; it wee not able 1:3 deliver the orders on time ie ite eustomers and as;

it was fereed to issue elosure notice; 18_.--%;:rﬁp~IQy_ees_"'e_ received elosure compensation and ether S<319i?i'ee'.';be"nefite:_ however? Sri.Ve1f1katesh and Sri;"€§hf.kkann;g' , accept the closure eompensatiq'f;..e>and~..:r131:;';1ge:i9i'eﬂt is V ready to pay the Sa1T1€.§31§1 fiieyf'Ve.:f;e£§>e._A.beefi"'diemissed from S€I'ViC€ after as such reinstatement or any other benefits doeemrliee eentended that 50% of closure been paid to Sri.Venka1:sh and Sri.Ch:ek;§,_e11e direetiene ef {he Labeur §.:'3r?..1f( A"'ee1pi.eyees izave duly received the ee:::pe'::ee::'i:2ﬁ :vea§;{§--.aeeerdi:1giy§ hee eemghfg for diemiesei L % ihe aazge es:::§;;ed eerueel ef ihe pieeéizzge egg zeeéf. as me V' V.'je§;%§de:£{:e ieedezed by ﬁne peréiee with refererzee ie {he éifﬁie;/"' 2 '<2 paint ef reference made by the approprieie Gevernment dated 3{).5,2OOC> would go to show that eententiezz was: As to Whether there wae.A4"'--I0<:fk * declared illegally by the managemeryteia 'V To rebut this contention, manageme'11t:h;.1s raised pulegiz that there was no such lock eras closure of the factory notice on 31.1.2000. At this juhcf.1ir§} ':0 delve upon the that reference eovgrtv beyond the scope of referenceivv-,31";,§} feetrieted its answer to the paint of as to whether there was §(}j_§§k£'§"§,ii zzyiqit eeulé 1123*: have reiied U:.§§E} §¢D,§~3'e.--/--1L8;'Z£§95 deﬁed 2231529354» :'v._i%$izi2e a:1e§ee:£:%.gj'.»*€he refereeee in the Ezzstanii ease ale"

' W§§efe:Vf'€::::%e ?£{:--f9f2$@G. A gerueel of {he zimgugmeé aware is ehetgv iha': éhe Labeur Semi £3: ihe Egaeiani L"k"».__Veaee "hes he': reéied gear: the aware §:>aSS€€§ by if; 1:: EB 3 .

/'_\.>°-V"

4;r' E') E U) Ne.,48/1996 While answering the Peini/Issue Ne} referred by the appropriate Government to it i.e_,,.VV;£';.e0~.:e whether the management had illegally ~ On the other hand, Labour 02 closure notice dated 31. 1.2000 whieh as EX_.M~28 and answered the byV.hv:11_.V_cii.n:§ swas 0 no lock out declared by In Labour Court has rightly ebserved beyond the scope of referenee i%r;ide"'ibaragraph 11 of impugned eueh a conclusion The Lab0ur1.._Ceurr; the very judgment new relied upon eeunsei appearing for zine DCMS Case reported in AIR 'ihai there is ne referenee made by e_npreprie3Ee"Eéeafernrneni with regard ige eieeure and ieeeenneé, enierge Size eeepe ef referenee by eerne ﬁring whieh ﬁe nee referred ie :1': fer V .__Ved3:?:::d'iee'den. And as eneh? E: bee rightfy nee deeided es in a v», héeeeeéefiiee Sr}: Re hﬁfehhaieeh - WW1 has himseif ﬁe wheiher ekueure is juetified Gr :10: since he eueh issue was referred te by the appropriate Government f:):fV_e::gei:1g answered by the Labour Court.

8. It would be of benefit to ex'i;;'aet.4ei;£j1e' by the Labour Court in this reg:a1'd Which' reacie' "That is to say the equrt X2;_3a:'g<iee1ared This court cannot deciding whether the elesure that is foreign to t11e;_eco§§e as rightly eontendedf" lead by both the 'ta-Iihge closure. That eam1<>i'i';_be' the sense, whether the eldethfe 55- V or not Cannot be eenegtiefedéhw he_:'e'1 Tstated by the learned f{§'E"ih€«§i'f$e£ part}; in hie arguments. §%e:fe',. ':39 cieeiaretien 0*? 3063:: 91:: medei' ii" §e":.a1ee reeeeeeary ﬁe ebeerzze at ihie jeheiure examined eh beheﬁf ef éhe Wezkeye 'fag;

M 13» ' Eeittzeveet frets: eervtee Withetzt heidtng 8,§'§}7 Eéemeetie X .45 U7 admitted in his erase examination dated 205192004 that he has taken 3. Stand that management has deeIare§:_t"-i:;O=$k out on the basis of EX.M~.'28 (Vide paragraph':-1t§i:t;§tf"the:t- cross examination). Whereas, Ev.>*:;M----.28 V' notice dated 31.1.2000, notifying the factory with effect from 1t2.200fT):'I'-~. In" S the V matter also the Labour Céurt hrétefigtitiyheldvvthere is no lock out much less ""'~et}.5tj_..edeclared by respondent - the same, the order of the that there is no lock out declareti management Cannot be found fault vtt'ith_ae euffer from any infirmity' txghatvseefsfee. E V' ' A ..... <4 .

xi*'73:§t'..__'tz5;s:""'_§:se;e{"etder at éziemtseai dated EELEGCEQ '77t_set'aed te" ;St§:EE"e§:kateeh§ eéhieh eanfte te be marked 'if:;«efeV??e :the..§,aheu:' Cettrt ax-': Ex.W~3, said atrerktttan has E v (9 INK' $0 l'°V._:e~.75e'"$e%: aeiée ami eaié award deee :10: Suffer fees}: aizy Erxquiry. However, in paragraph 27 of the statement ef {)bjf'3Cl£iC}I1S filed by the respondent» management..iVf:-tlxas been contended that Sr: R. Vekatesh has 0- frem service after holding enqui1*§;~»~by ll principles of natural justice and ' has not been challenged by' xlrery V reference dated 30.5.2OQf).e_ to the Validity or otherwise of issal dated 31.01.2000 passe: e management is justified has rightly held that £V"lthO1Sll; without issuing charge sheei and due proeess of law :v.....::.em:i:1af:ecl ihe services ef Sri.l??i;'5'€lf}'i1:ié3li€%Sl?';l' Efividenee ef MW»: weuld :30': gs £0 7_":3E3eW ﬁgai; ailegaééems made in ihe dismifesal erﬁer ﬁe ""§3i.f'§:?e'§gA. T Lebeﬁzze Ceuri has rightly eeme {e a eenelusiee "~.',"«.V":l":.g_*z§:_:*:2_3' 'e::£qj;::%r3r Wee held anal eeéer 0? ﬁiemissal is Eiahle fez . W' 1?

infirmity pariieuiariy when the management faiied :0 establish that Sri. R. Venkatesh was dismiseed aftefr-..:ei1.1e enquiry. NO records were produced in this _re:ga4fd;'ej'*-- ~ ViE'.\V of the same, order of the Lab0Lu=»~C?Quri{j d:i)'e'e3I.'nc5t_'eeLI1._V V' for interference and it is hereby affi1*fneC1., A' I}. Learned eounsel appeéririg f0r.'petVitiQf1er has contended that Labour lifaxze ordered for reinstatement of " 'I'3aek wages, Continuity of eenseeluential benefits and it is :--j}e{j "'Léi'eour Court erred in restricting zieieereief to 60% till BLQLQOOO en {he greurgfl had eiesed the factory on . juneture S:*:K.S¢SL§era1'ea:1ya§ §ee.:*:::e:f§"'T....ee:::9%e.e§'~T.,"e:§peerieg fer §ﬁ£'8:'}:§§'S eeeeeéaiiee V'77ee::*:e::e§s " $13: iezﬁieg eryivegi; 555 by {he Leeeuz' Ceuet Er:

4i._§;3®f,:'?$fe.T§;T*8;5«§§ S§'E§'¥.3;}§ eel: have 'eeee ieeiee inie ' --%::e:>.:ieide+:"e3:;:e::: fer eiweréing bee}: veagee, 1 6e :10: eee egxy ee 2; W CO infirmity in 1:116 firming cf £136 Labaur Cam': S1368 the Labour Court has only used the award

1.D/18/1996 as a yardstick to award the Wages in the instant case sir1cev.:t11e.

(Ref:48/1996) had 8.180 been VaWafd__e0(1_v_000%'v_-ﬂack after holding order of terminaiien the' instant case, Labour i:1r1;<0~:-;0'0c1é1te of EX~ ms nu 31.01.2000V'Sri.Rf_V§§11k%1£Lc%§Vh for 60% of back wages. 31.01.2000 the date of is 01.02.2000 and Labour C03grt._iﬁ1i}§ii:g:- '13 I10 leckeut declared on 31112000; back ivages; for (3116 day ""a«:f;....Inuch as it has been 11e1d in ..:i1':ai managemem has esiegéd dawn its 1:2.200{}. As sash award Sf €316 Labéur F€q11Ev§é%$ ﬁg ba siarifieé $9 5:115 said ﬁxiﬁfii 031;: 1::

.0u"~01"«_z;::Ii1:$0§:-AV_i£2<:+-16$ ii: means thaéi '%i?GYkﬁ18J2 is :23: $:":::Z':1€§. fa:

'?;331{:1{ wagies. Sense, {ha aufaré 3f $126 La§§G:.:§ Cgmsi . . {%M,2 '*3,\\\ 2§%:.21':A"-fsééiéigz as: szsarkzzzan has hﬁﬁﬁ dismissed Wiéhaufi Qgﬁjf ,,/ww w C1068 110% requires any further madificatien *3? variation sxcept to this extent of cbrification Only. Accordingijjkxérit petition N0. 17014/2008 stands dismissed __ _ observation.

RE: W.P.13386/2005 C/W w%.p.1745~1%/2oGé{;~.2 1

12. It is the contenti0n"V"oTf"2Sria 'V learned counsel appeaiﬁfig ' Labour Court erred in framing 891- 81.3.2003 that too on the. on 20.12.2002 whereunder 1:>g§,%1:Jf§:s§pﬁndenbmanagement to amenc1 *-._jtS"_ by adding/'inserting additional pa:*a.graphf.s 7év_vit3::: regard ':0 closure had been 1%1"ﬁ'é;'*}"§E{)%.,i:S}'§;., a}§{>w<»3d""3;§:d gams was impsmaigsibie and ::Gi::§5a.1jg} ES {4} 9f the inéusiriai Sisgxiea Act, V'1--. " §*<3_ad iafith ..__'Su,?§#Ru1e {1} azad £22} gf Rude 3% {b} af 3336 §1Zspute$ {C€:2t§3.Z"§ Ruisa §§5'E'i Es centﬁﬁds i 1 /W B' H) 6;) order ef errquiry and said order havirlg been held te be illegal? consequential relief which the Labour Couvrtletzght te have granted was award of 100% baekwagel_e'fre:r1__".

date of dismissal to the date of reinetatemerit * . not have restricted the payment of 31.01.2000 (alleged eloeure).lE£e"'~s.zszouldV._ale.oj*e{i--1orr11t":that0 Labour Court erred in of elosure in the present dispute since matter for coneideratiorl not have been allowed to all. He would also contend that elesure raised after a gap of 4 years eoul:l,__'r1ot llzaize been adjudicated and workmen 3:-a.r_metV_~'£;:e:e2:3:7eeted..te_lprove the said faet arid ae etzeh erderreé ef jgabeur Ceart te errerreeue. Gr: these ll"rr-..vgg2:reende' l:e.eleell§e fer eettirzg aside the erder dated ...,..:A:"vE"?VQ@2l2{:?{j3_A':'{Z5i;"}f§§XE3f€"I§31§ 3315, award dated 22;.l';.2€I§0@ {_§'§:"e;ex::re~B§.

Ex) [...

33. PSI' cantrag Sri Somashekazg learned csungel appearing for :'espQr1de3r1t~ma:1agement would ::<3.ﬁt«_:§61:s_;:I that workman had not reported to duty "

memo dated 9.8.1986 at and contends that workman is not efitifigd that too from 22.2.1996 0f 6 alternate plea, he would 'otﬂéfxﬁise, the workman was entitlgd 9.8.1996 i.e., till filing gf under which workman duty. He would contend thét' 6y the workman in hi8 evidence that ':0 duiy thaugh offered V'}:3e:€n"é:a1<:e§:: i::r;1;§ censideraiéarz by tbs Labaﬁzgf'%:§é::.,::}i:«..g:3éa.3;;i5: $1:§<:h award is liable 'E6 63 36?: asidﬁe 2a?<31:1cZ__V mniemd Ehat Laban: Cauri has 210%:

§::i;3 as-éisiésraiigrz 'ihe admissim': sf €335 ii%'t3ﬂ{IEE&§1 éemg gaiiifuiiy ampiasjgeé and 5,3 gash ii; ﬁffﬁd if: 'VV._:3&xA§3;:u*€ii::g baekaifagss 3: {ha rais af 66% fmm £316 ﬁaie Q? a w»~"'W termination till date of {ZEQBSE/3.1.6; He weuld further contend that management has Qffered filing a meme before the Labour Court on ~ on account of not reporting to «::}.ut}z,»AA»aI1Qth'erfrlemevizsgias V filed on 2.12.1996 which Came A"VI'eph'.e§d workman by filing objections i--996 V interalia that managemerxpshogiﬂleﬁ action against the workman Show that reasonable offer' has been rejected by f;}}é justifiable cause and as " not entitled for any baekwagese he seeks for seiiing aside th~e'~awa:f§ii':. éhe eiaim petiiiem by aﬂewizzg *:he W_"1*§:e by ihe management g 14.. 3% géerﬁzea} ef ihe award age': She reeezde seemed ff:m:;:a_"' :§V}:ée4--..«La%3eu:* Cearé areuéd zjiseieae ma: as gee V. V-eafamaaéeaééaa daied 22§2§EQ§§ azhieh came ie be ~"""

g '% marked 33 before the Labour Court services of the workinan Came to be terminated for the reasont»._:th__at management had lost Confidence on the . hereinbelowz ' b (1) Not submitting the accounts our repeated warningsir-._ V _ V _ (2) Not attending the OffiC€"'ﬂX?'5_t:'}iQ}lt any prior information. $ _V A _ ' (3) Not attending the instructions given in spitieij of ciiuri r.epeated_ On ac:count__VeteriﬁriatiowriVforder being issued, workman filed 'anbefore the Labour Court under seetiouri'*--«.Vtt the Industrial Disputes iiieitnetéiéa ;»_;3§n:endrne:*3t3'V£et5 3:98'? and section 2(3) of ind{:etr§ei'Aet, 194'? to Set aside the order of i'v.__'AA'te'rininae:i._on 22.2f{§96 as iiiegai and unjustified ;§':3.rVdreiri':§ste:terner:t with 323.}: baekwazgeeg continuity sf and eii other §QE3;S€§?,Zi€}"E§Zi8.§ 'eenefite, Stirring the § 2 WMM pendeney ef elaim petitieni management fileel an applieation seeking' permission of the Labour amend the counter statement by inserting ~ whereunder, management proposed' -te --'_plaee--VI, '4eerta.i1*l.. V subsequent events which have 'T pla;T:Ae'~ Closure 0f the establishment aifidffor additional issue in this regard. heenf allowed by the Labour court 17.2.2003 (Annexure--A to 1:2' also sought for being of the said plea would go elosure having been put forwarel by 'Was a subsequent event haizing plaeleillliiuriiig the peirideney of the dispute raisedi.':f:i%.,et..%z:e:"ls::1'1a:: and same has 'eeea rightly 7_l"'alEeweel; ,$i§1C{E~ ﬁfze eaid ieeue had a direet hearing aid ea eerieequentiial §"€li€fS that Labear ﬁeaei:

ii: the event ef the e:erkmae'e prayez' heieg V leeue ef elesuee being eeeiﬂenial te the eiaiie. ef yﬂy'_¢, ml Ln the workman he prejudiee or injustice was caused E0 the workman more particularly when evidence.'_'-.._i.~e., examination in chief on behalf of the ~ yet commenced. Hence, I do not findwany jihe, K2 order dated 17.22.2003 passed by the Labour Court fer--- .ii"ite:irfeVi*.eV1;iee by V this court. Hence, said prayer ﬁe herebjf'rejected."VV

15. Now, ttirnihg ijheimerits of the rival claims, ae services of the workman certain misconduct er in ether 1if'eifdsVi}'ie_. having ieet eoiifidenee en aeeeiifgié ef of the W'"()I'k.I113.I'L T he acts aiiege'& ieiter daied 22.2. i9§6 §EX,W?~='ii} eaizieiu ~i§'.._f%e3eVV":§e'f§_1ie§["by werkman er: 4.3.fi§95 {Ei}<;.IW~S} V'7§;rhez'ei::1eie;"Vegeékihah has deiﬁed: ihe aiiegaiieee made ':_3;§:8;§*3;};C'~'ﬁ{ Vhim. Gr: reeeigsi ei this i"Sj}:}?, §E3.E1Eg€§33€E§,§ has y ,~« far?"

M 0' x refused is reinstaté the Warkman by assigning the following reasons:

(1) We have received lot of Complaints ~ you during your service gnd y.<:2'u= committed lot of mistakes land.,,&ﬁ'€E '4l3a'\z¢'*--g0f.' f all the evidences for that aénclllyou $3. bad record in our 0ffice;~»..,,ﬂ,:%'*»., V. 1 V. S (2) We have terminahzfd yQu1*l:..S:efVic es ificle sﬁr letter N0.JDKI/206:/.Q€3~s9i3V:ivdlé{fé§_d,AV:2»2.2, 1995 and we have paicl.~tl1§:ICOmp,eiléalll§ii'. and all the dug: you have accepted sa§Ine_'.'5f~ '_ *

16. Tlj1is~. c':XCl91;»:j::ge: _»<5'f_:€:0r1*€spondence between the managemant ziiaé ihé Werkrﬁan would clearly go {:0 show, ilgaf: 31:3 .fé?:1q;:i;f§§ Wégs---£.C~nducted agairxsi; the warkman befgré _ " ..l_§ifscharged/terminaiéd from service.

l"'Ex!l'3.magé::1§§:1iVbég. ilitarly failed ta prmfe bgfare {E16 Labmzr nail alléged mis~{:0r:é::cé semmiiiéd by 'éhg Thyzsl Labezzf Cgzzrt ha$ rigﬁily cams m 8. V éezlgéiluéiszz that the Grﬂar Qf dismigsalfisrminaiian E3 E9 . . , W "-'>\\\\\' be set aside. i do net find any infirmity in the said finding which calls for interference.

17. When the order of dismissal is consequential order would be to to reinstate the workman inter)' Serviee VV.7ithv'v:'b21C.k,WageS and continuity of service: In " laid down by the apex court Synthetic Ltd., Vs. K.P, Agarwai '433 requires to be noticed issue regarding entitlernenti" def " A service' and / or 'consequential award ef baekwagee' earne te answered as under:

_ Stnfendre, iiumar Verrna {supra} reiated te :°etrenei1<nienifef several werkrnen in vieiation of Seetien "25"'-E?' e!§':i:e industrial ﬁiepiitee Eiet, 3947 SE _ ,z%.e1;'_fer .sher'é:_';i"'§his Court heid that when the order ei"

_ ten*n£:na*i.ienv ie set aside as being invalid and .. 'éneperetiiéiei it meet erdinaeiij; lead te reinstatement as if_the" erder of tenninatien was never made and . "~':_i;r:at ieeiiid neeeeeariiy iead ie §38.Q§{~¥%7&g€S tee. Thie Qezifti heezeeez, observed that there may be be hezgeeptienai €§i'C1J;i'i1St8.i'}C€S which may ::eai<:e ie ,.t__ impossible or wholly inequitable Visﬁvvis employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back: wages as for example when the industry might ,hat:;fe._V elosed down er might be in severe financial doldrtinisc. or where the concerned employee might have. secured"

other employment elsewhere and in such sitt1ationis,l * l the court has the discretion to deny full .l5acls:}'wagesi In the concurring judgment Pafihaliyl '*{aSjh:é«.1;hvv€fI1"

was)i held as follows :

"Ordinarily, a workman who b€€:1'l"J_"'(iElff3lii"1Cll':l_(3(il in contravention of the law is €_I1'£l:i'i1l§i(l=.e_l1O reiristatertient with full back wages 'end that princ'i.ple yields only where the justice of the-. c-Elsie }inW.th9el alight of the particular facts indicates -'d,esire.hility of a different relief. it' has n'ot"been' tous on behalf of the respon_de'n;t.i-ixrhjf the"ordinary-rule should not be applied.'-"" 'V '2. V. V .

14. Moihan._Lal (stipra). also 'i'eL::t'ed to retrenchment not in 1._conso"n:-tnceit.w1th'secticn 25~F of ID Act. This Court held ': V V"

"As pre~eoridit'ion -.foi~", a'..-Valid retrenchment has not heen;'sa.tisfied"'the terininatien ef serviee is ab initio i_,vei€l§'\"iinVelid and 'is-eperativei He must, therefore, be fteé he in continiieus serviceifjjh if the _tern1i:f:et.i_ee sis service is as initie 'mist and i'n1e';:%eVi's"ti:%e..:__»eii'e:'e is so question ef granting reiifistaterneiﬁicii because there is no eessetiozi ef serviee and e mere deeiszsstien feliews that he "-eentintses ts be in service with all eeeseseentisl

--.l;3enefits§s Gndouhtedly, in seine deeisiens ef this hiiiezirt.' sues ss Rifeg General ieserseee Se. Ltd" V80:

Cheers (PF?) {E969 {3} SSC 5&3} and Hindtistae Steels Ltd" VS! A K. Rey {Q89 {3} SCC $13; it W83 6 held that the eourt before granting reinstatement must weigh all the facts and exercise Cliseretien properly whether to grant reinstatement or to a,x3v'a;rei..V_ eompensstien. But there is a Caterina of deelsirirnisi. which rule that where the termination illegs.lj' especially where there is an ineffeetiVe'V0_rde1i.. of"

retrenchment; there is neithermw tern1.in'*ei'tien 'nor cessation of service and a declaration fallexzvs tlhai, the' workman concerned continues to be*i.:rii service 1:

all consequential benefits. No Case is IT1ad€f;_OUf for departure from this normeil.ly'~-gzteceptecl.app1'o§;ieh..sf the courts in the field of soeiétlejusticelancihave do not propose to depart in this easeff ' 7 156 But the manner in"Whiel1_Tbe.(:ki~i$2ages' is viewed, has undergone a significant vehlan-gev injtlie last two decades. Theyéeire no lor1ger"Cponsi'dc:red to be an automatic or %_"nat;ui'al °eo1isequ'enC'e'"ef~=reinstatement.

We may re_fer"to latest series of decisions on this question. fln5_U.Pt Stéttje i_Br'é1ss}ware Corpn. Ltd. Vs Udai l\l3.'l"".':"L?...lZ1_AlPZ":1Ill{ll"{.',:}3',? [2006 {'l'3'~SCC 4.-79], this Court following A1léii'i.:»ibs_1Cl.oJ;e.l"S,a13.sthan vs. Daya Shankar Rai [2005 {5} end Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan VS. S}. C';'.l§§3f1é£r1I1a. [2005 {2} SCC 353] held as follows " I "'=.._'A'A is ne't""'--entitlecl te get sernething enly because it fefeiild be lawful is so so. if that principle piseppiiileai; the ﬁinetions sf an industrial Ceurt shaii lease. .ijri:.£<;:i{i_"_e_i7 'their significance." 7ii?é;ith'e;ugh rjireetien to pay full peek eeeges er: s. ._ ._ V'-deeieretien that the erder sf terrninatien was invaiiei '' ']~ese<§_ ts he the usual results but new, with the p"§as,<'/glee ef time? s. pragrriatie view if the matter is 'Being taken ':33; the eeurts realizing that en industry _:_ee,y net he eernpelleel te pay te the werlerian for the e W '"/ E \x3'§§' U) C "x period during which he apparently eontributed little or nothing at all to it and/ or for a period that traps spent unproduetively as a result whereof employer would be compelled to go baclgg' situation which prevailed many years when the workman was retrenchedifiifij... Theehanges ' . (Were) brought about by the subsequent.'de(:iS'i~o1"ie=3. of the Supreme Court, probably having' regard _to_ the"

changes in the policy decisions or thjerC}ov1errirricnt..'i:1 'f the Wake of prevailing market economy, global.i'zation,"'~i privatization and outsourcingﬁs evident, ' « 4, No precise formula can be yJ.aid.._do_wn as-to _LlI1d€1' what circumstances payrnejnt of ..entire back wages should be allowed. lndispieitablyiv it 'depends upon the facts and circumstanees ._ofV_ each-.Vca}fsVe.--" It would, however, not correct'~ to ﬁco_nte1£;d" that it is automatic. Itf siﬁggo-cul.d'3-.not""be "g_rar1'ted' mechanically only becauselon =V.te-chn'1_eal'~.grounds' or otherwise an order of termiriationl is.gfoi_11i_1d"'to be in contravention of the provisions section 6¥4"N~--of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act L V. granting relief, application of mind on " the 'part the Industrial Court is imperative.' .Pay'me"n't _ of full back wages cannot therefore be the na._tural 'eonsequence.

pin Nlanager-;--«'Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Sing}: ii2£3iZ?t5 8CC 591], this Court observed :

'There i's7n.o retire at thurnb that in every ease rxrhere the indeatri_.ai Tribunal gives a finding that the . terrriination of serviee was in violation of Section 25»? "-of the ﬁieii, entire 'oaelr; wages should be awarded. A "_=.hoes.,--,_ ef H factors iike the manner and method of "aeiee_tf;or: and appeintrnerrt re, Vi?i'i€ﬂ"i€:i' after proper aziivertisemenyt of the Vaeane}? or inviting applications _fr;em the ernpioyrnent exchange, nature of gvyﬂ/W.,, 2 é $¢>§% U.) tr"

appointrnenti narneiy, whether ad hoof. short term, daily wage? temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and they like should be weighed and balanced in ta.kingaf€=. decision regarding award of back wages. Onle lofftjvhie important factors, which has to be tallqenv f-i.n'to ' , consideration, is the length of yservicef'whieh"~.the workman had rendered with the "e'mp'l.0yer.__"iii the workman has rendered a considerablec»._period if service and his services are wrongiiilly terrriiI_:at'ed, he may be awarded full or par':i_al~-backwages '}.<ee.ping in Vi€W the fact that at his ageyydand the qualification possessed by him he may not he._i'n_ya posit.ion_.to get another employment.' Hoxveyer,_ wh._ere'~-the total length of service rendered 'a ywo:jld3nan"'is small, the award of back wages for the eonfipl'ete';5_eri-od 14$: from the date of terIni_nation"'tili the»-.date«v:.of the award, which our experienice shows' _i_s'= 'often quite large, would be ,wh"ol1y...--ihapp.ropriateg Another important factor, which -requires.to~fhe"takeif1 into consideration is the riatuylre. of3I::employmen't...--A regular service of perma:f1ent'eli?aracter c.anr_1ot be compared to short or inte1'mit_tent dailyéwagelernployinent though it may be for 240 da?/&?>S"i.r1 a. ealendiarlyearf' has aieo----been a notieeahie shift in piaeing tii:e_W'i:nrdeni"of proof in regard to back wages. in Li<;enc:iriya_"iifieiyaiaya Sangathan {supra}, this Court the qtreetion of determining the entitiernent of a»g_:2ere"'orr to hack wages ie eoneernedg the ernplogree

-- '"ijias§_ to Show that he was not gainfiiiij ernpioyedi 'i'he iriitiai 'onrden is on him. After and if he piacee gjnateriais in that regard the ernpioyer can bring on 'E ,,, aiirréww g , Cg» ' Fm) record; materials to rebut the claim. in the instant case? the respondent had neither pleaded nor p1aee_d any material in that regard," * "

In UP. State Brassware Corpri.lllllLtLl.r' Court observed: "

"It is not in dispute that the _respondent .did_ n'o._t"ra,isle any plea in his Written statement that_ he-iwas not gainfully employed during the lsaidr.._period.-.1; now well settled by variou's».dee_isions..nofthis Court that although earlier this Court.i11sistled"'that it was for the employer to raise the aforer_nent:?:on--'edlp:1'€a--7but having regard to the _'lprovisior1s~ of '«.se_c:tilon. 106 of the Evidence Act" olrgighe "~.proVisio'n.s "-aiialogous thereto, such a plea'sho1ﬂ.d--'fbe by'-t_heV_work1nan."

17. There is'5'also9,a»rni.s_eon'eeption that whenever reinstatement is ~{;iireeted, 'cjontinuity of service' and 'consequential benefits'l"'she'uid follow as a matter of course, Tliet disastreus-"leffeet of granting several protections as».,a"1eonsequential benefit; to a person ..v_w'he:§_'i:as_rpr:s't werked;-«for 10 to 15 years and who does rret :»:a~é;::+; the benefit of necessary experience fer _ﬁiseE'rarg.i_:r:g .t_h'e higher duties and funetiens ef e:s::m::es_ar 'pests? is seldom Visualizeé while grargting. ieensequential benefits ﬁQiOH1al:lC8;ll},R Whe*r3ever eetrrts or Tribunals direct reinstaternerztt 'u.they sheafilé apply their judieial rnirxel to the facts srrel

--.ei:*e2;;rr:stlsnees ts éeeide whether 'es:1tir:'::ity ef . "-se:"f;ie.e* anol/er ieensequentiai eenefits' sheslﬁ else he ﬁireeted. We may in this behalf refer ts the ﬁeeisiens sf this (fear: in zi':.PiS.R."i'.Cl 'if. S. Narasa 'E3 ew La) U») Good [2003 {:2} SCC 2i2L A.P.S.R,"1IC. V. Abdui Kareem [2005 (6) SCC 36] and R.S.R.T.C. V. Shyarn Bihari La} Gupta [2005 (7) SCC 406].

18. Coming back to baelewages, even if finds it necessary to award back-wages, .tf1e"qi';es'tion will be Whether back-wages sho:.;i1db'e ..9('Wai7d«Stﬁj'.ftlnyjh V or only partially (and if so the pjei'<:enta_ge)..' Tiziatfi./.:

depends upon the facts and eirc'u.n1"s.tanees'.; of each ease. Any income received' 0 _I:$y._ the"emp.i1_oyee '-,_CiL1.ri.n-'g the relevant period on aeooiint of 'al-terriative employment or business is _a :r*e1e'zzant faetorﬁio be taken note of while "~.awardi_ng.,_ baek-- wages, in addition to the severaffaetozfsftmentionedin Rudhan Singh (supra) and Udai Narain:"~~.P'a.r§idey (supra). Therefore, it is4_ne_.cess'ary'fo1'_'th'e.V_en1p1oyee to plead that he was 2:_iotjgainft111yp empioyedvfrom the date of his termination. 1Whyi1'e«.an" employee cannot be asked to prove the n_iegati\?e,._Vhei_'has to'; at least assert on oath 'E11E1*E=v}f1§§"tWa§¢1::A:11€i'"th€T employed nor engaged in any gainfu1_bLisinVess "venture and that he did not have any 'ineemggf burden will shift to the e:ni1p1oyeii..V;B"o,t there 01::-D, "i1.oty'ever§ no obligation on the terminated'gemployee "to search for or secure a1terna't:x2fe employrnentg Be that as it may.

Bent-v.,_ti;.ei'..eases referred to abeve, Where baei«;~ §;%;aIg'e_s. awarded? reiated ts teriofiinationgretrenehrnent which were held to be . iiiegaf; and 'iriafaiid for norrweompliaeee with statutory "reqazlrerrrerats er reiated te eases where the eeurt

--..§e'a:ed that the termination was motivated or . "'a:aeL_t:':ted is reietirrzizatieri. 'ﬁre decisions reiaténg to _V bask wages payabie er: iiiega}. retrenchment or _te_rrn§r;atier3 may have ne appiieatien to the ease like 2 LA) ii' the present one, Where the termination {dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement} is by vvayﬁof punishment for misconduct in a departmentai..V_ inquiry, and the court confirms the finding regardiiiig. ' misconduct, but only interferes with the punélshtnentjl being of the View that it is excessive, and 'awards ' lesser punishment, resulting in the reinstatenient. of employee. Where the power under"A.rt<icle .226 ._or"

section llA of the Industrial D;'."--_Sp1_}ll;€.'S A«::t"~{_or other similar provision) is exercised by any.."_C,ou1*t to."

interfere with the punishm'e_n't~..on the ground'=.that it is excessive and the employee deserves 5a lesser punishment, and a consequenti'al_ (l.i_rection,.i_s 'issued for reinstatement, the 'c«our_t is Vnotholding that the employer was in the wrong or 'th_e,Vd»ismissal was illegal and invalid. Thewcourtis;mere1yV._'e:~:ercising its discretion to award a"leVsser _pufn_ishnient. Till such power is exere'ise'}d; 'the-.disInissal_ islvalid and in force. When the punli«shrnent«is___redu--eed' a court as being excessive, V there_ cariulbe ._ 'either a direction for reinstaterne,nlt;.oral;direction f'o'r~a'l4nominal lump sum compe:)sation§'v_i'&nd«if re_i"ns_ta,tement is directed, it can be effectiveeither.'prospeeetively from the date of such substitution of puriishrnent (in which event, there is no continuity of servi.ce}--"or retrospectively, from the date; on, Whi<':h_ the. penalty of termination was .ini1;ios~er;l.r_ {in rvhie-hi event there can be a censequerrr_iai._ direction relating ts continuity of _S€§'Z"Vl'C*3ll§"ﬁN3.l€'gl;l 'requires to be noted in eases where i3Zneli.n«g"'ei7_v..__rnj§seeridiiet is afiirrneri end; eniy the punishrnent---.V. is interfered with {as eentrasted from eases Where termination is heid to be illegal or void} ._ "-is that triere is no auteniatie reinstatement; anﬁ ii "V's»reine.tatement is directed, it is net antornatieaiiy ieitii p"retree--peetie"e effeet from the date ei" terrninarien.

-- Tiiereforei wiiere reinstatement is a eensequenee ef .. ieiipesitien of a lesser puriishrnenri neither 'naeliw <::v§%WM_"MM.,,,, , Cm) (fl wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases Whe_re. the misconduct is held to he proved, reinstatement is itself a consequential benef_it:"'a1"isi--ng :_. ' from imposition of a lesser punishment, "aWa.rd:"ol' it back wages for the period when the empl_oye.e':l1as~V.not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent' A employee and punishing the e_Vmploy.er'=_for l"takifn_g action for the misconduct co__nimitted'_»_b"y = tlaek ' employee. That should be 2:-voided. €S.imilarly,' i:1...such cases, even Where continuity"-va(y)f'--service.is~.d_irected, it should only be for purposes of lpensionary--/ retirement benefits, and not for other .'t>ene.fitsj "li_l~:e increments, promotions etc. " ll 7 " "

20. But there a_re.'two._ e>;ception's-_.'7l.'he first is where the court. "setsV_a'si_C".e the termination as a consequence of_,employeAe'r.being "exonerated or being found r1otglui.lty,the'rnisconduct. Second is where the court reaches 'Ala conclusion that the inquiry was held in '~respectj'-~..pof. "friv'olous issue or petty misconduct, as a.."-ca1no'u'ﬂage to get rid of the employee or_ri.rictin1_izAe_ him, and the disproportionately excessive pun-ishinent is a result of such scheme or interition} in su'ch.....cases, the principles relating to ._ VE;acl:~Wa§ges etc, will be the same as those applied in V' th e" eas"es ' opt'-an --illegal termination. "

V V' . :;§g::r:1sai of the dicta laid down by Apex Court .1 Ago...ptoVVllshosr that a departnre has 'seen made for A"l'_'jgraritA'of tall baelmrages on a declaration that order of (. A)

-«.1 empleyed is a factor which requires tee be taken ihte consideration While awarding backwages.

19. Keeping this in mind? t,he'---faet'_e is, requiredto be examined. In the ifistaht Cae-e,"'~Ih'ef13,Q"~_ came to be filed by the n1anagVe'iheht upon the workman to joixdpfer 'thtswtfaswtvtolloxxred by anether memo filed first memo, management t to initiate for the mis-

e0nduet/ ate the Workman by the management dated 22.21996 (EX.W-

43- This eenditiohaé effe: eame ':0 be ebgegteae égzerkmam by contending in his f{"E§§j;' Vivdeiated; if ehargee leveﬁeci agaihet him are azaéd if arerkmah is giszea meemai werk, he ie "'a:::Et'§;i}2£t1g ts jam duty at any time, 'Sheet readiag meme dated 9t8,1§€i§ aha': the siepiy dates':

fa %%£?MWw, U > (X) 2.22.1336 would go to Sh0W' that management intended to initiate disciplinary action and workxnan reinstatement without any conditions being: ' Labour Court was of the View thait' bound to prove the charges since matter and as such workm2:if1:.V::v.r21'sV. S not reporting to duty. Court is erroneous in as much at the first instance? ought to take the the second aspect namely as should have been given to the managernent - disciplinary proceedings ag;§e.;in_st e:'------§1'ot in order te test the bonaﬁdes of the i&fofkr{:r::.%tn»v %:§':.st;., H@XV€V€f§ Without embarking upon 3; '-,__€}{€_'t.i:'€_i:S:3; Lsbeur Court has straight away te':V----:s2.:ste.in the sbjeetiens ef the vaorktnan. In e._e:fe"n§;" sf the management having initteteeé any V .._§:"eee'e§§ngs against the 'eserkman at 3. Eate? date it 'EEJQEEECE 9' z%é:»,M.»M LI.) \..C' have been an independent and separate issue required; te be adjudicated in such proceedings. The {)I1I}7xf.§:iit£1€ issue which was required to be considered in tire ' dispute Was:

"Whether the order = 222.1996 terminating the--.Ve'erViees.__0f Vtxférkrrian '' t was justified or n0t?'f__

20. The question of in the instant case of the parties undergoing Enquiry, cannot be a ground te act ef Workman in not reporting to . hereinabove, if any aetien wje":"e.V_'te ;initi§eitec"iV"'by----«the management? the 'ezerkman tx7ee"'Aet"Vftiii ":93 question the same in eppreptiate

7._'":€erum in ee.eer{ienee with iew, Thus? the weriirnan Vbeir::'gié:'effered etnpieyrnent nee refueeé te eeeept This feeteei teettirt when teed eieng with """..__ge:ritiVe7nee 0? the 'i?sf0§'i{IE&I{i Leg. ereee exeminetiee dated we ML'-> L } 1.10.2004, whereunder Workgman has admitted that he has purchased a tempo by borrowing 1ea:?:~.V_::'-§1:*e.1jn Karnataka State Finance Corporation and;A4":---frofni.e:"' ' friends and is repaying the same by:p:aying'_4in_siia1i:nenit (if Rs/L000/~ every month would workman was employed and eafinng and*wae .:=1of_x>s/ithout employment.

21. In Vfiew namely, the order of (EX.W~4) being illegal t1*'1e workrnan was offered empioyment «iiie by filing 3. meme before sr1e«.ea199e, 1 an: ef the View that :a?efE:nie§2' '§S:::¥;14*Ti:fit:Z:4}€'Z€?:iE{3ijLQ:..f{I§1' 13$?/5:; back wages frem 22231995 $8;

Cf:?2;E:§e§ve:?e:; ii is is be feréher exentained ae éte what ' -V'§§e.f}e'en£ie;ge of baekéﬁzagee, ihe '%2';?Gf'kiI§.aIi is entitled ﬁe frem t%§K'i"W* 9.8.1996 til} the date of reinstatement or eiosuret in the instant case the Labour Court has found on ad.:1itiona1 issue by scrutinizing the evidence namely ' i.e. closure notice, order dated 17.3'.-2'G{}4 of Fund Authorities to arrive V at 9:'-.eonei1ui§.3Ai'on'~ V' management had closed its Vietfeet from 01.02.2000, In hiaterial having been placed I,VVi---ifiiourt by the workman, I ithiett Labour Court has rightly has Closed its operation tkjoro' means that if at all Workman is etVitit1edVVVVt'o__tiV*tihit--~~'ib4aekxVages it would be from 9%_e; 3 $9533 .tcia:eietei;:su:~e Let :3: 8 i,2ooo.

23. A E§iex§g;~ heek to the issue of pereehtage of 'ﬁe heiei by the Hotfble Apex Court 11:1 SEQ ease teferreé to euprat it weuid depend SE} ""'..__Vfae--tf§:~;"VIe;::€§ C§i'€'i.jiﬁ'iSi3.f},C€S of eaeh ease. it} the ihetent W N?» [*0 case, Labaur Caurt has feund that workman was carrying on some work by way of self ernp1c)yIn§3ri_§t..:'_:a1r1d not earning a regular salary income, and ~ cannot be said it is 3. gainful ernp1,0yme&nt.g; fi11r_i'jng 'A2 can be termed as fallacy. The purchased tempo as per Ex.M'?rr._§&%¢;+iaich of registration certificate r<.~:1§~t,jI1g«"h'1':"<'V>_ (ideas Carrier Truck, registered the_:_ jgguvorkman on 23.8.1998 is made by the managemenr as reflected in the reply filled -'the memo ﬁled by the nzanagementhé clearly go to Show that the avacatien af running 3;

gocds asgsuch he has turnad dawn the offer :i *;'::ade 'E:';:_4'Vr::ar1éLg:§:rr:6::i§ Err fact, iafmkman ir: his €rGs$ '"--«?§%::;&1fr:»ir:a%:i§:;:,,ﬁaiéd LEQQGGQ 3.: paragragsh ? has é'2_'e3::i'r:';é":%:$":§- '£1635 facts. '§h:,1:s§ ﬁle EF'£'§§"§{1"I"}8.I"} was he: icﬁe $1"

ii :s;:3::'r§: be €€Z}I'1Sf:E'§,é€d er held the warkmsgz was wiihaui V V z.fl7;§é""WW any ineeme at all, Hewevezx this eeuet cannot leee sight ef the fact that such income eannet be e0nst4m_eeli~..as either as eenstant or perennial in nature.__-*.. "ié;f::ii:l::l:'i--

definitely vary, However, the L:1bm,1r 'Au noticed this fact has restricted the (of 60% which is slightly on highél'-:Sid€ to be scaled down by ree.tricti'ﬁ§ Vte._&.5O0/Eh' "hi other words, the award of the ;_..granting 60% baekwages is In that the following:

(1) im::_ tlztitm :§i§§.i7ei4,z2o0e is hereby eehieet te ebservatiene made ii':

1} heeeineheve.

.V {2} lR',zF";f§Vle'.':l3386/2805 is hereby ellewed it; eert ll 'ﬁ.:§j:£lev§?eI{:l ef the Leheet Ceesft in ee fess es it eeletee te aware ef $093/5:; heeliwagee is eiedified / / % e/WA

- --. i .. »_ ' V-Qyderéri _A i§®::0rCii::gi3:.

and heid that respondsnt ~ Workman is entitled for 50% of backwages from BLLZOOO.

(3) Writ Petition No.17451/2006-is in part and the award (»5f__ L9éﬁt}'9(.)u»r 2 granting 50% bacmagés fram9% 22.9%2_k'1996% an 9 9.8.1996 is hereby.ﬁfidtmaﬁéigément is directed from 2292,1995 t9i}L19999.89;9199:é:. ' (4) In a11_ 99 éward of the Labour Cioi;1_r1;._ 1:) No.48/1996 dated 22,1112904xS:é12'.d'::.;_}::ffirmed except to the extent héfeim....ab0V€.

L{5}9F3,ri;é§3s directed is bear {heir rwpectzlva " . C"<:%si:s§ j_ A éigf 332:5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court