IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.722 of 2009 1. MUZAFFARPUR ZILA KHADI GRAMODYOG SANGH, SARVODYA GRAM, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND 2. SECRETARY, MUZAFFARPUR ZILA KHADI GRAMODYOG SANGH, SARVODYA GRAM, MUZAFFARPUR …………. ……………………………..PETITIONERS … APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MUZAFFARPUR AND 2. SRI DEVENDRA MISHRA, S/O SRI MAHESH MISHRA, VILLAGE – KANHAULI BISHANDATTAPUR, P.S. SADAR, DISTT. – MUZAFFARPUR .. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS. ---------- For the Appellants:- Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sourendra Pandey and Mr. B.N. Tiwari, Advocates. For the Respondent No. 2:-Mr. A.B. Ojha and Mr. S.N. Jha, Advocates. ---------- 3. 06.01.2010. Questioning the legal propriety and validity of the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. 11874 of 2000; the appellants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts which are imperative to be stated are that the respondent – workman, a permanent employee of Muzaffarpur Zila Khadi Gramodyog Sangh (hereinafter referred to as `Khadi Sangh’) after being not allowed to join at the place of his duty knocked at the doors of the Labour Court forming the subject matter of Misc. Case No. 21 of 1982 for payment of back wages. The employer filed its 2 written statement on 18.11.1982 contending, inter alia, that he was not allowed to continue in service as he had been dismissed on 03.08.1982. The Labour Court considered the stand put forth by the workman and the combat put forth by the employer and considering all the aspects it came to hold that the order of dismissal was erroneous in law. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the employer, Khadi Sangh, approached the Labour Court and raised a number of contentions as is evincible from the order passed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge as is demonstrable has dealt with the same in great details and eventually expressed the opinion that the workman was dismissed without holding an enquiry; that the plea of enquiry that was canvassed before the Labour Court was a subsequent defence and could not be given credence to; that the order passed by the Labour Court that the order of dismissal was absolutely unjustified and had been passed in contravention of the procedure was totally impregnable; that the allegation that he had remained in unauthorized absence and, hence, deserved to be visited with an order 3 of dismissal was not correct inasmuch as he had filed an application for leave and the same was accepted as per the finding of the Labour Court; that in view of the facts that have been brought on record before the Labour Court it was difficult to consider that there was any unauthorized absence; that the order of dismissal is covered within the scope and ambit of Section 26(1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 and that the order of reinstatement was defensible and does not require to be interfered with. Being of this view, the learned single Judge did not interfere with the writ petition and proceeded to hold as follows:- “As noted above, it was the sheer callousness and negligence attitude on the part of the employer to have kept the employee respondent no. 2 of his payment of salary and reinstatement even after the order of the Labour Court and therefore, this Court while dismissing this writ application would not only direct for all consequential benefits flouting out of the order of the Labour Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, but also payment of exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/- for the suffering and mental 4 agony caused to respondent no. 2.” We have heard Mr. Shivaji Pandey, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants and Mr. A.B. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants, if we are permitted to say so, laboured hard to impress upon us that the order passed by the learned single Judge is absolutely faulty, but the labour is basically a gloss to cover the fault of the employer since the employer could not have behaved in the manner as it has behaved which has been noted by the learned single Judge and, therefore, we really do not find any substratum to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge as far as affirmation of the order of the Labour Court qua reinstatement. However, a submission was canvassed by Mr. Shivaji Pandey, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants that the Khadi Sangh is under financial crunch and, therefore, the grant of entire back wages to the workman is inapposite and there should be some restriction. Mr. A.B. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 combating the submissions of Mr. 5 Pandey contended that when this Court is of the view that the order of the learned single Judge is not to be interfered with as regards the reinstatement, as a sequiter all consequential benefits have to be granted and the financial crunch which is unnecessarily pyramided by the learned counsel for the Khadi Sangh should not be given any consideration. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that when there is a ground urged with regard to financial crunch a balance has to be struck. Thus, without interfering with the order of the learned single Judge as regards the reinstatement and other benefits, we only modify the direction as to payment of arrears restricting it to a period of ten years. The same shall be paid within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. Another aspect which was highlighted by Mr. Pandey that the learned single Judge should not have imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the Khadi Sangh regard being had to its financial condition. When we have already curtailed the benefit of arrears to the period of ten years, we are of the view that imposition of 6 costs is not warranted and the same is made easy. We further observe that as the benefit of arrears is restricted up to the period of ten years, the same would not affect any amount payable under any statute unless there is any kind of impediment in any other law. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above without any order as to costs. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )