IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR jCHHATISGARH} w. P. No. IW60F 2003 Municipal Corporation f Bilaspur through its Commissioner, Municipal Bilaspur,Distt. Bilaspur [CG] PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer underID. Act, Labour Court, Biiaspur [Chhattisgarh] RESPWQ’NDENTS i, V/ . L(b(b\‘°«-L§ x ? ,Q-z'f;'. P ‘ Smt. Bhagwat Savita Dubgy, Dubey Resident W/o Mr. of , *l 1 “ -~ l, Kududand, House of Chandrika Behind 16 Prasad Khan, Tiwari, Tahsil $5 Distrist Bilaspur [Chhattisgarh] ; f, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2é6z22§ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR AMUS ISSUANCE PROHIBITION OF WRIT AND IN NATURE OTHER OF SUITABLE CERTIORARI, WRIT MAND QR WRITS. DIRECTION OR L; DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: XE? " <90 J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker‘ Diwaker) Writ Petition No. 1976 of 2003 PETITIONER Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur VERSUS RESPONDENTS Presiding Officer under ID Act, Labour Court Bilaspur and another Shri A. S. Kachhwaha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prafulla Bharat, counsel for respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . ORDER (18.10.2011) Challenge in the present petition is to the award dated 31.3.2003 passed 1 by respondent No.1 (Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur) in case No. i} 50/|.D.A./K-III-A/2000 directing for reinstatement of respondent No.2 with full w V 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 14.7,1995, respondent No.2 was ’ appointed as peon at Magarpara Ambedkar Schooi, Bilaspur, on daily wages and ”:1; she continued as such till 13.1 1 .1998. Thereafter, from 14.1 1.1998 to 30.11.1998 ‘ leesx she remained sick and the intimation about her sickness was given by her through one Dhirendra Pratap Singh whose affidavit filed before the Labour Court is Annexure P—7. Further case of respondent No.2 is that after recovery from her illness when on 30.11.1998 she went to the school for joining her duties, same was not accepted by the principal of the school. Respondent No.2 then y , approached the Conciliation Officer and when the report of the conciliation proceedings was sent to the Government, a reference was made by it to the back wages. Labour Court, Bilaspur for adjudication as to whether termination of respondent ' No.2 was legal and proper. On receipt of the above reference by the State Government, case of respondent No.2 was registered as Case No. §Oll.D.A./K- lll-A/ZOOO. Learned Labour Court recorded the statement of respondent No.2 only as despite several opportunities the petitioner did not come forward to adduce its evidence and ultimately its right to do so was closed on 10.12.2002. After due appreciation of the evidence available on record the Labour Court has g h 7 9 passed the impugned award holding that as respondent No.2 had worked from 14.7.1995 to 13.11.1998 and that mandatory provisions of ceitified standing order have not been followed. she is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. 3. From the order of the Labour it appears though not with full clarity, that before removing respondent No.2 from service, the petitioner did not adhere to the mandatory provisions of the ID Act. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has erred in law in granting full back wages to respondent No.2. He placed his reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Couit in the matter of Reetu Marbles Vs. Prabhakant Shukla reported in 2010(2) M.P.L.J. 294 and Mls. P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Ram reported in AIR SCW 2904. 5. Replying to the argument of the petitioner, it is submitted by counsel for respondent No.2 that the award impugned is strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the same as respondent No.2 was removed from service in an illegal manner and therefore she is entitled for full back wages. 6. From the evidence adduced by respondent No.2 it is evident that she has worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days in a calendar year i.e. from 14.7.1995 to 13.11.1998 This fact has not been controverted by the petitioner as it has not adduced its evidence despite several opportunities granted for the same. 7. As held by the Supreme Court in a series of cases, right to full back wages even after the termination of service is declared invalid in law is not absolute. Though the services of workman are terminated unjustifiably and illegally, it does not create a right of reinstatement with full employment benefits and full back wages as it would be an unreasonable exercise to put a huge burden on the employer. Thus keeping in view this principle of law in mind, this Court is not in agreement with the findings recorded by the Labour Court by the award impugned directing the reinstatement of respondent No.2 with full back wages. However, in the interest of justice according to the considered opinion of this Court, the reinstatement of respondent No.1 with 50 per cent back wages would be just and reasonable and the same is made to prevail accordingly. 8. Thus, the petition is partly allowed. Impugned award is hereby modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement of respondent No.2 with full back wages, she would be entitled for reinstatement with 50 per cent of the back wages. dl _2_ Pritinkgt biwaker / we \