Case: U.P.State Brassware Corpn. Ltd.  Vs. Udai Narain Pandey

3. The Appellant is an undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Respondent herein was appointed on 23rd July, 1984 in a project known as Project Peetal Basti by the Appellant for looking after the construction of building, cement loading and unloading. He worked in the said project from 23.7.1984 till 8.1.1987. He was thereafter appointed in Non-Ferrous Rolling Mill. By an order dated 12/13.2.1987, the competent authority of the Non-Ferrous Mill of the Appellant passed the following order:Following two persons are hereby accorded approval for appointment in Non-Ferrous Rolling Mill on minimum daily wages for the period w.e.f. date indicated against their name till 31-3-19874. The services of the Respondent were terminated on the expiry of his tenure. An industrial dispute having been raised, the appropriate government by an order dated 14.9.1998 referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Presiding Officer, Labour, Court Uttar Pradesh:Where the employers decision to terminate the Workman Sh. Uday Narain son of Pateshwari Pandey w.e.f. 1-4-87 was illegal and improper? If yes whether the concerned workman is entitled to the benefit of retrenchment and other benefit?5. The Project Officer of the Appellant-Corporation appears to have granted a certificate showing the number of days on which the Respondent performed his duties6. The Labour Court in its award dated 31.10.1991 came to the finding that the Respondent worked for more than 240 days in each year of 1985-1986. It was directed:Therefore, I reached to the decision that the employer should reinstate the concerned workman Uday Narain Pandey son of Sh. Pateshwari Pandey w.e.f. the date of retrenchment i.e. 1-4-87 and he should be paid entire backwage with any other allowances w.e.f. same date within 30 days from the date of this order together with Rs.50/- towards cost of litigation to Sh.Uday Narain Pandey. I decide accordingly in this Industrial Dispute7. The Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court in May, 1992 which was marked as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23890 of 1992 inter alia contending that as the Respondent had not rendered service continuously for a period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months immediately before his retrenchment uninterruptedly, he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It was further contended that the appointment of the Respondent was on contractual basis for a fixed tenure which cannot to an end automatically as stipulated in the aforementioned order dated 12/13.2.19878. An application was filed by the Respondent herein under the Payment of Wages Act wherein an award was passed. The said order was also questioned by the Appellant by filing a writ application before the High Court and by an order dated 12.8.1993, the High Court directed it to pay a sum of rupees ten thousand to the Respondent. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, the Respondent is said to have been paid wages upto February, 1996. By reason of the impugned order dated 6.2.2004, the writ petition was dismissed holding:Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid findings recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse. The learned senior counsel then contended that the Petitioner No.1 i.e. U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. has been closed down. Be that as it may, the position of the Respondent workman would be the same as that all the similar employees and this cannot be a ground to set aside the award of the Labour Court.

Reasoning: 13. It is not in dispute that the Respondent was appointed on daily wages. He on his own showing was appointed in a project work to look after the construction of building16. The Labour Court in its impugned award has not arrived at any finding that the order of appointment dated 8.1.1987 whereby the Respondent was appointed afresh in the Non Ferrous Rolling Mill was by way of unfair labour practice. It is, however, true that the Appellant relying on or on the basis of the aforementioned order dated 12/13.2.1987 in terms whereof the Respondents services were approved for appointment in the said mill on minimum daily wages for the period 8.1.1987 till 31.3.1987 terminated his services without giving any notice or paying salary of one month in lieu thereof. No compensation in terms of Section 6-N of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act was also paid17. Before adverting to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, we may observe that although direction to pay full back wages on a declaration that the order of termination was invalid used to be the usual result but now, with the passage of time, a pragmatic view of the matter is being taken by the court realizing that an industry may not be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all to it and/or for a period that was spent unproductively as a result whereof the employer would be compelled to go back to a situation which prevailed many years ago, namely, when the workman was retrenchedIt is not disputed that the Respondent did not plead that he after his purported retrenchment was wholly unemployed21. The Labour Court although passed its award relying on or on the basis of the certificate issued by the Appellant, it did not hold that during the preceding 12 months, namely, for the period 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987 the workman had completed 240 days of service. Unfortunately, neither the Labour Court nor the High Court considered this aspect of the matter in right perspective22. No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is automatic. It should not be granted mechanically only because on technical grounds or otherwise an order of termination is found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act39. The decisions of this Court strongly relied upon by Mr. Sangal, therefore, do not speak in one voice that the industrial court or for that matter the High Court or this Court would not have any discretionary role to play in the matter of moulding the relief. If a judgment is rendered merely having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein, the same, in our opinion, could not be a declaration of law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India62. In the instant case, we have noticed hereinbefore that the establishment of the Appellant wherein the Respondent could be directed to be reinstated had been sold on 26.3.1993. In that view of the matter, Section 60 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act would apply in terms whereof compensation will be payable in the same manner as if he was retrenched under Section 6N thereof63. It is not in dispute that the Respondent did not arise any plea in his written statement that he was not gainfully employed during the said period. It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court that although earlier this Court insisted that it was for the employer to raise the aforementioned plea but having regard to the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act or the provisions analogous thereto, such a plea should be raised by the workman64. The only question is whether the Respondent would be entitled to back wages from the date of his termination of service till the aforementioned date. The decision to close down the establishment by the State of Uttar Pradesh like other public sector organizations had been taken as far back on 17.11.1990 wherefor a GO had been issued. It had further been averred, which has been noticed hereinbefore, that the said GO has substantially been implemented. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the back wages payable to the Respondent for the period 1. 4.1987 to 26.3.1993 is confined to 25% of the total back wages payable during the said periodIn that view of the matter, although no notice was required to be service in view of the proviso to Clause (a) of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, compensation therefor as provided for in Clause (b) was payable. But, it is not necessary for us to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said decision as it is not disputed that before the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act can be invoked, the concerned workman must work at least for 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made48. The Court, therefore, emphasized that while granting relief application of mind on the part of the industrial court is imperative. Payment of full back wages, therefore, cannot be the natural consequence.