http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6576  of 1999

PETITIONER: P.G.I.OF M.E. & RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJ KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/11/2000

BENCH: U.C.Banerjee, K.G.Balakrishna

JUDGMENT:

BANERJEE, J. L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     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.  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.  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.   Learned Single Judge of  the  High  Court drawing inspiration from the decision in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.  Ltd.  vs.  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 herein  before. 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 services 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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  benefit  of continuity  of  service  but awarding only 60% of  the  back wages.   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.  As noticed above, the learned  Single  Judge of the High Court while dealing  with the  matter  apart from recording certain decisions 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 therefor.   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 circumstances as a matter  of  principle should record the circumstances  under which  the  use  of discretion of the Labour  Court  or  the Tribunal  as  the  case  may be,  was  erroneous  warranting interference.  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 discretion 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 Hindustans  Case, itself reduced the back wages to 75%, the reason  being the contextual facts and circumstances of  the case  under consideration.  The Labour Court being the final court  of  facts  came to a conclusion 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 certiorari 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.  The observation, as above, stands well settled since  the  decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob Vs.   K.S. Radhakrishna (AIR 1964 SCC 477).  Before proceeding with the matter any further let us have a look at the decisions cited before  this  Court by the respective parties in support  of their   respective  contentions.    Learned  Senior  Counsel appearing  in support of the appeals placed strong  reliance on  the  decision of this Court in the case of P.G.  I.   M. E.  & Research, Chandigarh Vs.  Soma and Anr.  (Civil appeal No.12558  of  1996) wherein this Court expressed an  opinion that  in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Court was justified 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. 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 vs.  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 Somas case (supra)  has been  noticed  by this Court in Vinod Sharmas case  (supra) wherein  this  Court  apropos the decision  in  Somas  case observed a mere look at the said judgment shows that it was rendered  in  the  peculiar facts and circumstances  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. 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 straight jacket  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.   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 (f)  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 Singhs 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.

     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 Courts 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

authority  to interfere.  Unfortunately, the High Court  did not  feel  it  expedient to record any reason far  less  any appriciable reason before denouncing the judgment.

     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.