Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. vs Anwar Basha And Ors. on 26 October, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)ALT920
Author: T.N.C. Rangarajan
Bench: T.N.C. Rangarajan
JUDGMENT M.N. Rao, J.
1. In this writ appeal, the appellant - M/s. Singareni Collieries Ltd. - is questioning the view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 15354 of 1989 by which the appellant was directed to "give all attendant benefits including that of payment of backwages from the date of termination of the respondents herein till their reinstatement." Pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 6798 of 1983, dated December 12, 1983 by which the order of the termination was quashed, the respondents-workmen were reinstated in service on March 21, 1984 but no backwages were paid. Some other workmen similarly circumstanced as the respondents herein filed W.P. No. 16373 of 1984, which was allowed by a learned single Judge on February 6, 1986 specifically granting backwages besides reinstatement. Later on, the respondents approached the Appellant-Company claiming backwages and as the same was not conceded, they filed W.P. No. 15353 of 1989, which as already stated was allowed by the learned single Judge basing on the decision in W.P. No. 16373 of 1984.
2. In this writ appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the mere in fact of reinstatement, no conclusion would follow that the workmen were entitled to backwages and there was no specific plea that the workmen were not gainfully employed during the interregnum between the order of termination and the order of reinstatement. We are unable to agree. From the judgment under appeal, it appears that no such objection was taken before the learned single judge. Further it is settled law that "where the termination is illegal, especially where there is an ineffective order of retrenchment, there is neither termination nor cessation of service and a declaration follows that the workman concerned continues to be in service with all consequential benefits." (1981-II-LLJ-70) (SC). Even if the affected workman had taken up employment for short periods in order to save himself from starvation, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the wages earned by him during the period should not be reckoned in the computation of payment of backwages. It was held in S. G. Chemicals and Dyes Employees Union v. Management. (1986-I-LLJ-490).
"It was lastly submitted that several employees must have taken up alternative employment during the intervening period between the date of the closure of the Churchgate division and the hearing of this appeal and an inquiry, therefore, should be directed to be made into the amounts received by them from such alternative employment so as to set off the amounts so received against the backwages and future salary payable to them, it is difficult to see why these eighty four workmen should be put to further harassment for the wrongful act of the Company. It is possible that rather than starve while awaiting the final decision on their complaint some of these workmen may have taken alternative employment. The period which has elapsed is, however, too short for the moneys received by such workmen from the alternative employment taken by them to aggregate to any sizeable amount and it would be fair to let the workmen retain such amount by way of solatium for the shock of having their services terminated, the anxiety and agony caused thereby, and the endeavours, perhaps 3 often fruitless, to find alternative employment."
3. What needs to be noticed in the instant case is that on the last occasion, when the matter came up for hearing an objection was taken by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no specific plea that the workmen were not gainfully employed. To this, Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen, responded by saying that his clients would file affidavits to the effect that they were not gainfully employed during the interregnum. Accordingly six affidavits have been filed before us to that effect by all the six workmen. In the circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order under appeal.
4. The writ appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed with costs.