It appears that the Tribunal and the Division Bench had proceeded on the footing that since the order of dismissal passed by the management was set aside, the order of reinstatement with full back wages was to follow as a matter of companyrse.
The services of the respondent were admittedly terminated on 11.6.87.
It is the case of the appellant that the respondent was duly reinstated in service after joining duty.
This absence from duty was recorded in a letter sent to him, on 6.4.2003.
Therefore, the reference was number companypetent.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed a review application which has been dismissed by the High Court with the observation that the writ petition was decided on merits and if the applicant is number satisfied with the judgment it is open for it to challenge the same in the higher companyrt of law.
On 22.4.2003, the respondent filed the Writ Petition.
The respondent had failed to give any evidence before the Labour Court, that he remained unemployed from the date his services were terminated.
He worked till 10th of June 1987.
Therefore, there seems numberjustification in allowing the salary and other benefits for the days he did number work.
The award has been modified and it has been held that the respondent shall be entitled to full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.
This writ petition was opposed by the appellant.
Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the appellant is carrying on business in marble and other allied products at Kanpur.
By the judgment and order dated 20th July 2004, the writ petition has been allowed.
The respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government for adjudication before the Labour Court.
Respondent, thereafter filed writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking modification of the award.
His salary was sent by money order on 20.4.2003.
He was number permitted to work from 11th June 1987 onwards.
He worked for 6 days and thereafter never returned.
Oral evidence was also presented on behalf of the respondent as well as the employer.
This award was rendered by the Labour Court on 27th of September 2002 i.e., more than 15 years after the services of the respondent were terminated.
The respondent was engaged by the appellant as an accountant.
From the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal which has been companyfirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court, it is clear that the order for payment of full back wages to the workman was passed without any discussion and without stating any reason.
Plaintiff is number entitled to get the pay and allowances for the period he did number perform any work.
The employer as well as the employee filed their written statements.
In spite of the aforesaid factual position the High Court misdirected itself by directing the appellant to pay full back wages to the respondent.
The Labour Court gave its award on 27.9.02.
Upon due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court companycluded that the respondent was working in the organization of the appellant on a salary of Rs.1,200/ per month as full time Accountant.
He served the employer from 1.3.86 to 11.6.87, when his services were terminated.
It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that he was being paid a sum of Rs.1200/ per month as wages.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.7.04 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.18641/03 and order dated 28.4.06 in Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No.172974/04.
