Sumit Kumar v. Presiding Officer And ANR
! Date of Decision: 27.11.2018 Sumit Kumar .....Appellant versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another .....Respondents " # $% $
& $ # $
& Present :
Mr. Sajjan Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** % $
& $ '()! Aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge not allowing full wages, the appellant1workman has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
2.
Undisputed facts are that the appellant1workman was appointed as a Professional Sales Representative w.e.f. 31.01.2002 in the respondent No.21company. He was promoted on the post on 11.11.2002 and subsequently promoted as Senior Field Officer on 30.04.2004. He remained under the employment from 2002 to 2007 and his services were terminated on 06.01.2007 on account of his alleged absence from duty from 31.12.2006 to 07.01.2007 i.e. for only 7 days. The management terminated his services without issuing any charge sheet or initiating any enquiry proceedings treating it to be a case of abandonment of service. 3.
An industrial dispute was raised which was referred to for adjudication by the Labour Court. Vide award dated 17.02.2014 the Labour Court allowed the reference and answered the same in favour of the
appellant1workman holding that there was no abandonment of service by the appellant1workman and his services were terminated by the Management without any show cause notice or disciplinary proceedings and without following the procedure prescribed in Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly directed reinstatement in service with 25% of his basic pay as back wages payable from the date of demand till the date of award.
4.
Aggrieved by not allowing continuity of service and full back wages and other consequential benefits, the appellant1workman filed the writ petition.
5.
Learned Single Judge finding that 25% of the basic pay as back wages awarded by the Labour Court was dehors any reasoning and showed non1application of judicial mind and once termination of the appellant1 petitioner was held to be illegal by the Labour Court, he was entitled to consequential benefits of reinstatement with continuity of service. Learned Single Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and modified the award to the effect that the appellant1workman shall be entitled to instatement in service with continuity and 50% of the back wages from the date of demand notice till reinstatement. Aggrieved by the denial of full wages by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred. 6.
Learned counsel for the workman1appellant contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is also devoid of any reasons as to why the workman1appellant was being denied 50% of back wages though he was entitled to full wages as the termination was held to be illegal. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed the same mistake in awarding only 50% of back wages without assigning
any reasons as was done by the Labour Court for payment of 25% of back pay as back wages.
7.
In the light of the facts enumerated above and the arguments advanced, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the appellant1 workman is entitled to full back wages for the period he was kept out of service by respondent No.21Management.
8.
The issue of payment of back wages on reinstatement for the period the appellant1workman remained out of service came up for consideration before a Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case !
"#"!$#%&'""
!
"#"()( *++The Court after examining the issue held as under:1
!
"
#
#
$
%
!
$ &' &( )
* +, - $ '.&/
0
"
$
# )
1
2
$
3
$ #
*
#
#
1
4
5
9.
The issue was also answered by another three Judges Bench in the case of * " ,# -" # ! +" & .!" #" / &
0 &12#1 0 + 3 "4 5"&63 ( *++ 3 in the following words:1 788,
*
#
262
3
0
#
5 10.
Again in the case of 9* ":
4 "+ % ! 9 '
"' *++ )( the Apex Court has held as under:1 "7
827 +, - $5
!! "#
!
!
"#
9
:
:
"
:
:
:
#
#
;
3
2 62
<
$
2
#
5 %
!
& '
(
)
'
*
+
,
!
(
)
)
'
&
-
'
%
'
&
-
)
.+
,
%
&
-
!
,
.+ ,
'
'
)
"#
/ '
,' #
' ' $
'
,'
#'
'
''
# ,'
'
!
'
0
/ 1 '
# ,'
!
'
'
*
'
'
!
%
!
2
&
3
4 '
'
!
(
'
&
-
)
.+
,
!
(
'
)
'
&
-
'
'
567 &819:77 / 8 ;3-:&% ; 57:1<** / -:=>; $.0 !
Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No