Allahabad High Court
U.P.State Bridge Corp.Ltd.Through Its ... vs Mohd.Shameem on 7 July, 2010
Author: Satyendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Satyendra Singh Chauhan
Court No. - 22 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 999 of 2001 Petitioner :- U.P.State Bridge Corp.Ltd.Through Its Secy.M.D. Respondent :- Mohd.Shameem Petitioner Counsel :- Ashok Pandey,Shishir Jain Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,D.P.Dubey Hon'ble Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
This petition has been filed challenging the award dated 20.09.2000, inter alia, on the ground that opposite party no.1 has wrongly been ordered to be reinstated by the Labour Tribunal and full back wages have also been awarded illegally to opposite party no.1 as the settled law of the Apex Court is that while considering the award of back wages, normally 50% back wages are allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that 30% back wages have already been paid to opposite party no.1 and he has been reinstated under the orders of this Court, therefore, he is entitled to only 20% back wages at the moment.
I have perused the impugned award and I find no illegality in the finding recorded by the Labour Tribunal. Reinstatement of opposite party no.1 as ordered by the Labour Tribunal is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and moreover, the finding recorded by the Labour Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity.
However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the award 20.09.2000 is modified to the extent that opposite party no.1 would be entitled to the 50% back wages. It is also directed that the salary of opposite party no.1 will be revised as permitted under law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 7.7.2010 RBS/-