-:- 1 -:- Writ Petition No.12937 of 2010 (S). 08.11.2011 :- Shri G.S.Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brajesh Pandya, learned counsel for the Respondent. Heard. O R D E R THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No.13709 of 2010 (S) [Premchand s/o Mangilal Dandelwal v/s General Manager, M/s Sanghi Brothers, Indore]. [2] This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the employer challenging the Award dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure-P/9) passed by Labour Court, Indore in Case No.76/08 Reference I.D. by which the Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the Respondent- workman without back wages. Writ Petition No.13709 of 2010 is at the instance of the workman challenging the part of the award by which back wages have been denied to him . [3] Briefly stated the Respondent-workman was working on the post of Office Assistant with the petitioner from 01.05.1981. His services were terminated by an oral -:- 2 -:- order in September, 1989. His request to allow him to work was not accepted. Aggrieved he approached to the Labour Court, Indore by filing an application under Section 31 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The Labour Court vide order dated 21.09.2007 passed in Case No.127/03 MPIR dismissed the application filed by the Respondent on the ground of limitation. In appeal filed by the Respondent, the President, Industrial Court vide order dated 15.11.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.86/2007 dismissed the appeal by making observation which reads thus :- “In the application under Section 31 (3) of the Act there could not be any mention that the cause of action arose to the applicant on acquittal by the Court in the criminal case. In case the applicant wants to make the date of acquittal by the trial Court in the criminal case as the date for cause of action for reinstatement in service, he may pursue his remedy available to him under the law. This Court does not express any opinion on that point. The application under Section 31 (3) of the Act as presented was definitely barred by limitation. This appeal is dismissed.” [4] On the basis of the aforesaid observation and liberty, which was granted to the Respondent by the Industrial -:- 3 -:- Court, the Respondent approached to the State Government by raising an Industrial Dispute. The Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated 18.06.2008 referred the dispute about termination of the Respondent to the Labour Court, Indore. The said reference order passed by the State Government on being challenged by the petitioner – employer in Writ Petition No.5433 of 2008, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 14.12.2009 observing that the parties would be at liberty to raise all such pleas, as are available to them in accordance with law, before the Labour Court. [5] On receipt of the reference, the parties submitted their pleadings before the Labour Court. The Respondent – workman examined himself; whereas the petitioner did not led any evidence. The Labour Court vide impugned order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure-P/9) answered the reference and ordered reinstatement of the Respondent without back wages by holding that the petitioner had dismissed the Respondent on account of a complaint about his involvement in a criminal case and on acquittal by the Court it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have reinstated him. Having not done so, the Respondent is entitled for reinstatement. So far as denial of -:- 4 -:- back wages, no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved, both the parties are before us. [6] Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the annexures and the record of the Labour Court, we find that the Labour Court while passing the impugned award has failed to take into consideration the various aspect involved in the matter which includes as to whether the Respondent was illegally retrenched and as to whether his services were terminated on account of his involvement in criminal case. In the absence of any cogent evidence being led by the parties to the effect that termination was on account of involvement of the Respondent in the criminal case, the finding of the Labour Court that on his acquittal he is entitled for reinstatement does not appear to be justified. Be that as it may, the Labour Court was required to have dealt with all the relevant questions for deciding as to whether the termination of the the service of the Respondent was valid and proper and as to what relief he is entitled for and for that what direction needs to be issued to the petitioner. It is also seen that no reasons have been assigned by the Labour Court for denying the back -:- 5 -:- wages. [7] In our considered view the entire matter was required to have been decided by the Labour Court in its correct perspective keeping in view the pleadings raised by the parties and the evidence led by them. Having not done so, we have no option but to remit the matter back to the Labour Court for deciding it afresh. [8] Accordingly both the writ petitions are allowed to the extent that the impugned Award is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. Parties are at liberty to lead fresh evidence. They shall appear before the Labour Court on 08.12.2011. A copy of this order be placed in the record of connected writ petition. [ Shantanu Kemkar ] [ Prakash Shrivastava ] JUDGE JUDGE (AKS)