P.G.I. of M.E. and Research, Chandigarh Vs. Raj Kumar etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6576 of 1999 With C.A. No. 6577 of 1999, C.A. No. 6578 of 1999.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.99 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A.No. 872 of 1993
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.99 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A.No. 872 of 1993
Petitioner: P.G.I. of M.E. and Research, Chandigarh
Respondent: Raj Kumar etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6576 of 1999 With C.A. No. 6577 of 1999, C.A. No. 6578 of 1999.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.99 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A.No. 872 of 1993
(From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.99 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P.A.No. 872 of 1993
Judges: UMESH C. BANERJEE & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 11, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. D.S. Nehra, Senior Advocate, Mr. S.K. Mehta. Ms. Shobha, Advocate with him for the Appellant.
Mr. M.K. Dua, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 25F read with Section 25B – Reinstatement in service – Award of back wages – Power of the Labour Court – Award of re-stricted back wages when justified – Labour Court while ordering reinstatement of respondent employees with continuity in service awarding only restricted back wages to the extent of 60 per cent on the facts of the case – High Court on writ petition, ordering grant of full back wages on the ground that as the workers were ready to work, there was no justification for not awarding full back wages – However not noticing any error or erroneous assump-tion of jurisdiction by the Labour Court nor recording any cir-cumstance – Whether High Court justified in interfering with the finding of the Labour Court. Held, Labour Court being final fact finding court and vested with discretion in the matter of award of back wages it was not open to the High Court to go into the factual aspects under writ jurisdiction. Further High Court obliged to record reason in judgment before denouncing judgment of the Labour Court. In the absence of any reason recorded in the judgment, order of the labour Court stands restored.
Held:
The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclu-sion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity 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. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certior-ari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate though however perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. (Para 9)
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 straightjacket formula can be evolved, though, howev-er, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. (Para 12)
In the event however the High Court’s interference is sought for there exists an obligation on the part of the High Court to record in the judgment, the reasoning before however denouncing a judgment of an inferior Tribunal, in the absence of which, the judgment in our view cannot stand the scrutiny of otherwise being reasonable. There ought to be available in the judgment itself a finding about the perversity or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court and it is only upon recording therewith the High Court has the authority to interfere. Unfortunately, the High Court did not feel it expedient to record any reason farless any appreciable reason before denouncing the judgment. (Para 14)
The orders under appeals are set aside and the orders passed by Labour Court stand restored. (Para 15)
Cases Reffered:
1. Rattan Singh v. Union of India (1997 (11) SCC 396) (Para 13)
2. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (1979 (1) SCR 563) (Para 4)
3. Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishna (AIR 1964 SC 477) (Para 9)
JUDGEMENT:
BANERJEE, J.
1. The Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh is in appeal against the Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The only limited question in these three appeals is whether the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances of the matter in issue was justified in awarding 60% of the back wages while ordering reinstatement with continuity of service.
2. The High Court in the matters under appeal did interfere with the order of the Labour Court in a petition under Article 226 principally on the ground that the Labour Court was in error in the matter of grant of restricted back wages to the extent of 60% and the High Court has modified the order of the Tribunal and directed entitlement in its entirety. The appeal of appellant herein-before the Appellate Bench against the order of the learned Single Judge, did not however, yield any benefit and the contentions stand negatived by the Appellate Court and hence the appeals before this Court by the grant of special leave.
3. Incidentally, be it noted that three separate writ petitions were filed before the High Court by the three affected workmen against whom the Labour Court has declined to pass an order for back wages in its entirety but in view of the common question of law and fact the High Court dealt with the same in one common judgment and we also feel it expedient to deal with the same in this judgment even though three specific appeals have been filed in the matter.
4. Learned Single Judge of the High Court drawing inspiration from the decision in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (1979 (1) SCR 563) came to the conclusion that there is no justification in not awarding the full back wages in the event, the workman is ready to work. The Appellate Court recorded the concurrent finding as noticed hereinbe-fore.
5. The contextual facts in Civil Appeal No. 6576 of 1999 depict that the respondent joined the service on September 1, 1986 as a helper and worked up to July 18, 1987 and it thus stands proved that respondent had completed 240 days of service when his serv-ices were terminated on July 18, 1987, which however was held to be not in accordance with law and as such the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh came to a finding that the services of Raj Kumar were illegally terminated by the appellant and as such declared his entitlement for reinstatement in service with bene-fit of continuity of service but awarding only 60% of the back wages.
6. The Labour Court being the final Court of facts and the law being well settled
for which we do not intend to dilate,
came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirements of law.
7. As noticed above, the learned Single Judge of the High Court while dealing with the matter apart form recording certain deci-sions of this Court did in fact notice a flaw in the matter of grant of the quantum of back wages and as such granted full quantum therefore. The High Court did not find any error or erroneous assumption of jurisdiction in the matter of declaration of payment of back wages. While it is true that admittedly the normal rule being payment of back wages in its entirety, the High Court while recording normal rule has failed to notice any error apparent with the reasoning of the Tribunal in the matter of grant of restricted back wages. The Judgment of the High Court is totally silent on this score. The High Court ought in such cir-cumstances as a matter of principle should record the circum-stances under which the use of discretion of the Lobour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be, was erroneous warranting inter-ference.
8. While it is true that in the event of failure in compliance with Section 25(F) read with Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the normal course of events the Tribunal is supposed to award the back wages in its entirety but the discre-tion is left with the Tribunal in the matter of grant of back wages and it is this discretion, which in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) this Court has stated must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While however recording the guiding principle for the grant of relief of back wages this Court in Hindustan’s Case, itself reduced the back wages to 75%, the reason being the contextual facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.
9. The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the re-quirement of law. The finding of perversity 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 as-pects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evi-dence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inade-quate though however perversity of the order would warrant inter-vention of the High Court. The observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishna (AIR 1964 SC 477).
10. Before proceeding with the matter any further let us have a look at the decisions cited before this Court by the respective par-ties in support of their respective contentions. Learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeals placed strong re-liance on the decision of this Court in the case of P.G. I. M. E. & Research, Chandigarh v. Soma and Anr. (Civil Appeals No. 12558 of 1996) wherein this Court expressed an opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court was justi-fied in restricting the back wages to 50% and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the Tribunal and raising the back wages upto 100% and it was in that perspective that the appeal was allowed.
11. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, placed strong reliance on a later decision of this Court in P.G. I. of M.E. & Research Chandigarh v. Vinod Krishan Sharma & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1261 of 1992) wherein this Court directed payment of balance of 60% of the back wages to the respondent within a specified period of time. It may well be noted that the decision in Soma’s case (supra) has been noticed by this Court in Vinod Sharma’s case (supra) wherein this Court apropos the deci-sion in Soma’s case observed “a mere look at the said judgment shows that it was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstanc-es of the case. It is, therefore, obvious that the said decision which centered round its own facts cannot be a precedent in the present case which is based on its own facts.” We also record our concurrence with the observations made therein.
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 straightjacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. As regards the decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra) be it noted that though broad guidelines, as regards payment of back wages, have been laid down by this Court but having regard to the peculiar facts of the matter, this Court directed payment of 75% back wages only.
13. Strong reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in Rattan Singh v. Union of India (1997 (11) SCC 396), wherein this Court observed that protection of Section 25(B) cannot be denied to a workman on the ground that he was a daily-rated worker, having regard to the factum that the said daily-rated worker had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year. The industrial jurisprudence as developed in the country also accepts the same as a true statutory intent in the matter of introduction of the Industrial Disputes Act in the statute book. Significantly, however, in Rattan Singh’s case (supra) this Court thought it fit by reason of contextual facts to direct payment of consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of back wages and reinstatement – the reason being the factum of the time lag between the date of termination and the date of order. It is well settled that cases are to be decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances and no generalised principle can be deduced but facts shall have to be considered in its true and proper perspective.
14 The issue as raised in the matter of back wages has been dealt with by the Labour Court in the manner as above having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter in the issue upon exercise of its discretion and obviously in a manner which cannot but be judicious in nature. In the event however the High Court’s interference is sought for there exists an obligation on the part of the High Court to record in the judgment, the reasoning before however denouncing a judgment of an inferior Tribunal, in the absence of which, the judgment in our view cannot stand the scrutiny of otherwise being reasonable. There ought to be avail-able in the judgment itself a finding about the perversity or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court and it is only upon recording therewith the High Court has the authority to inter-fere. Unfortunately, the High Court did not feel it expedient to record any reason farless any appreciable reason before denounc-ing the judgment.
15. In that view of the matter these appeals stand allowed. The orders under appeals are set aside and the orders passed by Labour Court stand restored. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
1. The Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh is in appeal against the Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The only limited question in these three appeals is whether the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances of the matter in issue was justified in awarding 60% of the back wages while ordering reinstatement with continuity of service.
2. The High Court in the matters under appeal did interfere with the order of the Labour Court in a petition under Article 226 principally on the ground that the Labour Court was in error in the matter of grant of restricted back wages to the extent of 60% and the High Court has modified the order of the Tribunal and directed entitlement in its entirety. The appeal of appellant herein-before the Appellate Bench against the order of the learned Single Judge, did not however, yield any benefit and the contentions stand negatived by the Appellate Court and hence the appeals before this Court by the grant of special leave.
3. Incidentally, be it noted that three separate writ petitions were filed before the High Court by the three affected workmen against whom the Labour Court has declined to pass an order for back wages in its entirety but in view of the common question of law and fact the High Court dealt with the same in one common judgment and we also feel it expedient to deal with the same in this judgment even though three specific appeals have been filed in the matter.
4. Learned Single Judge of the High Court drawing inspiration from the decision in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (1979 (1) SCR 563) came to the conclusion that there is no justification in not awarding the full back wages in the event, the workman is ready to work. The Appellate Court recorded the concurrent finding as noticed hereinbe-fore.
5. The contextual facts in Civil Appeal No. 6576 of 1999 depict that the respondent joined the service on September 1, 1986 as a helper and worked up to July 18, 1987 and it thus stands proved that respondent had completed 240 days of service when his serv-ices were terminated on July 18, 1987, which however was held to be not in accordance with law and as such the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh came to a finding that the services of Raj Kumar were illegally terminated by the appellant and as such declared his entitlement for reinstatement in service with bene-fit of continuity of service but awarding only 60% of the back wages.
6. The Labour Court being the final Court of facts and the law being well settled
for which we do not intend to dilate,
came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirements of law.
7. As noticed above, the learned Single Judge of the High Court while dealing with the matter apart form recording certain deci-sions of this Court did in fact notice a flaw in the matter of grant of the quantum of back wages and as such granted full quantum therefore. The High Court did not find any error or erroneous assumption of jurisdiction in the matter of declaration of payment of back wages. While it is true that admittedly the normal rule being payment of back wages in its entirety, the High Court while recording normal rule has failed to notice any error apparent with the reasoning of the Tribunal in the matter of grant of restricted back wages. The Judgment of the High Court is totally silent on this score. The High Court ought in such cir-cumstances as a matter of principle should record the circum-stances under which the use of discretion of the Lobour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be, was erroneous warranting inter-ference.
8. While it is true that in the event of failure in compliance with Section 25(F) read with Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the normal course of events the Tribunal is supposed to award the back wages in its entirety but the discre-tion is left with the Tribunal in the matter of grant of back wages and it is this discretion, which in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) this Court has stated must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. While however recording the guiding principle for the grant of relief of back wages this Court in Hindustan’s Case, itself reduced the back wages to 75%, the reason being the contextual facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.
9. The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would comply with the re-quirement of law. The finding of perversity 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 as-pects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evi-dence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inade-quate though however perversity of the order would warrant inter-vention of the High Court. The observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishna (AIR 1964 SC 477).
10. Before proceeding with the matter any further let us have a look at the decisions cited before this Court by the respective par-ties in support of their respective contentions. Learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeals placed strong re-liance on the decision of this Court in the case of P.G. I. M. E. & Research, Chandigarh v. Soma and Anr. (Civil Appeals No. 12558 of 1996) wherein this Court expressed an opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court was justi-fied in restricting the back wages to 50% and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the Tribunal and raising the back wages upto 100% and it was in that perspective that the appeal was allowed.
11. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, placed strong reliance on a later decision of this Court in P.G. I. of M.E. & Research Chandigarh v. Vinod Krishan Sharma & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 1261 of 1992) wherein this Court directed payment of balance of 60% of the back wages to the respondent within a specified period of time. It may well be noted that the decision in Soma’s case (supra) has been noticed by this Court in Vinod Sharma’s case (supra) wherein this Court apropos the deci-sion in Soma’s case observed “a mere look at the said judgment shows that it was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstanc-es of the case. It is, therefore, obvious that the said decision which centered round its own facts cannot be a precedent in the present case which is based on its own facts.” We also record our concurrence with the observations made therein.
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 straightjacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. As regards the decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra) be it noted that though broad guidelines, as regards payment of back wages, have been laid down by this Court but having regard to the peculiar facts of the matter, this Court directed payment of 75% back wages only.
13. Strong reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in Rattan Singh v. Union of India (1997 (11) SCC 396), wherein this Court observed that protection of Section 25(B) cannot be denied to a workman on the ground that he was a daily-rated worker, having regard to the factum that the said daily-rated worker had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year. The industrial jurisprudence as developed in the country also accepts the same as a true statutory intent in the matter of introduction of the Industrial Disputes Act in the statute book. Significantly, however, in Rattan Singh’s case (supra) this Court thought it fit by reason of contextual facts to direct payment of consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of back wages and reinstatement – the reason being the factum of the time lag between the date of termination and the date of order. It is well settled that cases are to be decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances and no generalised principle can be deduced but facts shall have to be considered in its true and proper perspective.
14 The issue as raised in the matter of back wages has been dealt with by the Labour Court in the manner as above having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter in the issue upon exercise of its discretion and obviously in a manner which cannot but be judicious in nature. In the event however the High Court’s interference is sought for there exists an obligation on the part of the High Court to record in the judgment, the reasoning before however denouncing a judgment of an inferior Tribunal, in the absence of which, the judgment in our view cannot stand the scrutiny of otherwise being reasonable. There ought to be avail-able in the judgment itself a finding about the perversity or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court and it is only upon recording therewith the High Court has the authority to inter-fere. Unfortunately, the High Court did not feel it expedient to record any reason farless any appreciable reason before denounc-ing the judgment.
15. In that view of the matter these appeals stand allowed. The orders under appeals are set aside and the orders passed by Labour Court stand restored. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
