^•11 lllllll. 5 COyRTFEESEXE^PTED BY NOTiFiCATION N0.996(yD-2870/XXt- B/C.G./05 AS SPEC?FIED IN SCHEDULE I&HOFTHECOURTFEE,5ACT1870. ^ S?ng|@ B^neh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. (UNO. ^S^ /2009 PETITIONER: ^....••r^ ,vA ^,.^! ^' ^^^M>"" y^\ l^ .^\^' ^ RESPONDENT: 1. 2. <""" State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division ~ Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS Basant Yadav, S/o - Budhsingh Yadav, R/o - Chilfighati, Kawardha, District - ^ Kabirdham, (C.G.) The Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION (L) No. 2310 of2009 PETITIONER : StateofChhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Basant Yadav & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/petitioner. Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. ORDER<ORAL) (Passed on 15th day ofMarch, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.05.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case No. 22/ID/2007(Ref,), whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service with 50% back wages. 2. Shri Dubey, leamed counsel appearing for the State/petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 was appointed on daily wages basis on 01.04.1995. His ser^ices were terminated on 18.02.2000 as there was no farther work available for him. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 01.02.2007. Shri Dubey further submits that the leamed Labour Court, without considering the legal issues and without appreciating the evidence adduced by the petitioner^ has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service with 50% backwages. The respondent No. 1 was given compensation of Rs.3600/- yet the termination of respondent No. 1 has been declared as illegal for want of compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Labour Court has also not appreciated the fact that the t "%.\'t .^j 3;/ reference was made after a delay of seven years from the date of termmation. Shri Dubey next contends that pursuant to the order dated 09.05.2008 (Annexure P/l) the respondent No. 1 has already been reinstated in service. However, challenge in this petition is only to the extent of grant of 50% backwages to the petitioner as no specific reason has been assigned for the awarding 50% backwages. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity or infirmity. The leamed Labour Court, after appreciation ofthe evidence adduced by the parties, has come to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent No. 1 comes within the purview of illegal termination. The petitioner was unemployed from the date of his termination, thus, the Labour Court has rightly awarded 50% backwages in addition to reinstatement in service. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner has not questioned the legality and validity of the impugned order with regard to reinstatement ofthe respondent No. 1, but the grant of 50% back wages has been challenged. On pemsal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below has not considered the facts in its entirety while awarding back wages to the tune of 50% except that the respondent No. 1 was in search of employment and since there was no denial by the petitioner/State, it was directed to grant 50% back wages to the respondent No. 1. 3< iNlinni iii^ The Supreme Court., in M.P.State Electricity Board. v. Jarina Bee (Smt.) while dealing with the issue ofgrant offull backwages aflter order ofdismissal was set aside, obser^ed as under: (<7. In P.G.L ofMedical Education and Research \.Raj Kumar this Court found fault with the High Court in setting aside the award of the Labour Court which restricted the back wages to 60% and directing payment of full back wages. It was observed thus: (SCC p. 57, para 9) "9. The Labour Court being the fmal court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. The fmding of per^ersity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect." Again at para 12, this Court observed: (SCC p. 58) "12. Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety." 8, The position was reiterated in Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd v. Ajay Kumar. 9. Applying the legal principles, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court committed an error in holding that the award of full back wages was the natural consequence." Further, the dicta laid down in the above case was referred approvingly in Novartis India Ltd v. State of West Bengal &0thers by the Supreme Court, obser^ing as under: (2003) 6 SCC 141 ' (2009) 3 SCC 124 ,r-^"x. .^'^ ^ 3^ "22. It is also trite that for the purpose ofgrant of back wages, conduct ofthe workman concemed also plays a vital role. Each decision, as regards grant of back wages or the quantum thereof, would, therefore, depend on the fact ofeach case. Back wages are ordinarily to be granted, keeping in view the principles of grant of damages in mind. It cannot be claimed as a matter ofright. 24. In M.P. SEB v. Jarina Bee this Court observed that the award of full back wages was not the natural consequence of an order of reinstatement." 9. Having regard tb the facts situation ofthe case, when the reinstatement ofthe respondent No. 1 is not under challenge and the respondent No. 1, after reinstatement, has been working, grant of 30% backwages would subserve the interest of justice, Accordingly, the impugned order in respect of grant of backwages is modified to the extent of 30%,insteadof50%. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge