SC fiat favours illegally terminated employees

SC fiat favours illegally terminated employees
UNITED NEWS OF INDIA

NEW DELHI, JAN 28: Once it is found that the services of an employee were illegally terminated, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages cannot be denied, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The ruling was handed down by a division bench comprising Justice S Rajendra Babu and Justice Shivaraj V Patil, while allowing an appeal and setting aside an award of the industrial tribunal and an order of the Allahabad high court.

By the impugned award and order, the tribunal and the high court refused the relief of reinstatement with full back wages to the appellant despite holding that the termination of his services was illegal.

Vikramaditya Pandey was employed on December 12, 1981 as a clerk on ad hoc basis by the Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. He was serving as such till July 19, 1995 continuously with small motivated breaks in between to ensure that he did not continue service for more than 89 days.

His services were terminated on July 19, 1995 by an oral order.

He challenged the termination of his services before the industrial tribunal.

The tribunal, after holding an inquiry and on the basis of the evidence, held that the termination was clearly a ``retrenchment'' as defined under section 2(S) of the U P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was also contrary to section 6(N) of the act.

It, however, refused to grant him the relief of reinstatement, but granted him the benefit of retrenchment with 12 per cent interest for the relevant period.

The appellant then filed a writ petition in the high court. The bank did not challenge the award of the tribunal.

The high court concurred with the findings of the tribunal that it was a case of retrenchment but was of the opinion that no interference was called for with the award having regard to regulations 5 and 103 of the U P Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975.

The appellant thereafter moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in its judgement said ``it is open to the employer to specifically plead and establish that there were special circumstances which warranted either non-reinstatement or non-payment of back wages. In this case, we do not find any such pleading of special circumstances either before the tribunal or the high court,'' the judges noted.

Both, the tribunal and the high court, the judges said, were not right and justified on facts and law in refusing the relief of reinstatement of the appellant in service with back wages.

The judges, therefore, directed reinstatement of the appellant on the post, he was holding at the time when his services were terminated.

``But, however, having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the order of termination dates back to July 19, 1985, we think it just and appropriate in the interest of justice to grant back wages only to the extent of 50 per cent,'' the judges observed.