^-—- .? IN TIIE HIGH COLTRT OF CIiHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \¥PJTPETITION No. -^7/__ OF 2004 /' PETITIONER VERSU8 RESPQNDENTS Municipa! Corpos<atioii, Bilapur tlyougSii the Commissioner, / Municipal Cotpomtion, Bilaspur. 1. Deepak M. Bhalerao Son of Late M.B. Bhalerao, aged 40 years, Ex-Clerk- (Food Department), / \ ^A^y^ T/fos Osraiagar, Jariia Bhata, Bilaspur, ^^v'" Distt. Bilaspur(C.G) ^y' ^^' >y'^^- ....••^v.-T^.'^ ^°\^^le>" ^:^ ^•^-1>S >'• 2. Presiding Offlcer, under the Industrial Dispute Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur ^:^ ••••"" WRIT PETITION LJNDER ARTICLE 226/2 ^ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR IS8UANCE OF WRXT IN TIffi NATURE...QF_MANDAMU8.__....CERTIQRARY AND/OR ANY OTIiER8UITABL_E_WRIT OF LIKE NATiJRE ..--—.-A;._^. ^^»s^-:' '^. r ti-,-^ i 1 %'I;Sj^ 1 1 ""?^J ^ HIGM COURT OF CHMATTIS©ARHAT BILASPUR (Mon. Mr«Justice Pritinlcer piwai€@r) Writ Petition No. 571 of 2004 PETTriONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS Munidpal Corporation/ Btlaspur Deepak M. Bhalerao and anoth^- Shri A. S. Kachhwaha, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsd for respondent No.l. WRIT PET3TION UNDERARTICLe im/ZZ7 OFTHE SpNsrrruTSC^ OF XNDM ORDER (30.08.2011) Chailenge in the present petitton is to the award dated 24.12.2003 passed by respondent No.2 (Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bllaspur) in case No. 27/I.D.A./K-III-A/03 dsrectjng for reinstatement of respondent No.l with futl back wages. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 30.11.1996, respondent No.lwas appointed as clerk against the sanctioned vacant post on dally wages and he continued as such till 17.01.2000. the date @n which his services were oraily terminated. Respondent No.l had approached the Condliation Offlcer and when tha report of the condliation proceedings was sent to the Government/ a ref»"enee was made by it to the Labour Court, Bilaspur for adjudication as to whether termination of respondent No.l was legal and proper. On receipt of the above reference by the State Government/ case of respondent No.l was registered as Case No. 27/I.D.A./K-III-/V03, Learned Labour Court recorded the statements of th®parties and passed the impugned award holdlng that as respondent No.lhad worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, mandatory provisions of certiffed standing order have not been foilowed, respondent No.l is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. ^ \ 1 "-^ 1 ^" 3 -2-- 3. The findlng of the Labour Court that the flrst respondent was removed from service in viotation of the mandatory provision of 25 F & G of the Industrial Dispute Act was not assailed with any seriousness. As a matter of fact^ as pointod out by the Labour Court/ before removing the flrst respondent from servlce the petitioner did not adhere to/comply with the mandatory provtstons of Section 25 - F&G of the Industriat Dispute Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has erred in law In granting full back wages to respondent No.l. He ptaced his reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court In the matter of Reetu Marbles Vs. Prabhakant Shukla reported in 2010(2) M.P.1...1. 294 and M/s. P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. Vs» Mahendra Ram reported in AXR SCW 2904. 4. From the evldence as adduced fe>y the petltioner it is evictent that respondent No.l has worked wlth the petitioner for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Thls fact has b@en caSegorjcally admltted by the witness No.l of the petitioner nameiy Shiv Kumar Singh that there was no compliance of Section 25-F, no cbarge- sheet was issued, no departmental enqutry Initiated against respondent No.l and further no order was obtalned frora the Government for removing respondent No.l. 5. As held by the Supreme Court in a sertes of cases^ rlQht to fuil back wages even after the termination of servlce is dedared invatid Sn Jaw Is not absolute. Though th@ servlces of workman are terminated unjustlflably and illegatly, it does Rot creat®a right of reinstatement with fuil employment benefits and ful( back wages as it wouid be an unreasonable exercise to put a huge burden on the employer. Thus keeplng in vlew this principle of taw in mind, this Court is not in agreement wlth the flndings recorded by the Labour Court by the award impugned directing the reinstatement of respondent No.l wlth full back wages. However, In the interest of Justice according to the considered opinlon of this Court, the reinstatement of respondent No.l with 50 per cent back wages woutd be Just and reasonable and the same ts made to prevall accordingly. 1M -3- 6. Thus, the petition is partty allowed. Impugned award is hereby modjfied to the extent that instead of reinstatement of respondent No.l with full back wages, he would be entitied for reinstatement wlth 50 per cent of the back wages. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge