PRASAR BHARTI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, ALL v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM

6. The question, however, which arises for consideration is as to whether in a situation of this nature, the learned Single Judge and consequently the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court should have directed respondent with full back wages. Whereas at one point of time, such a relief used to be automatically granted, but keeping in view several other factors and in particular the doctrine involvement of the public money, a change in the said trend is now found in the recent decisions of this Court. This Court in a large number of decisions in the matter of grant of relief of the kind distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. It may be that the definition of “workman” as contained in Section 2(s) of the Act is wide and takes its embrace all categories of within workmen specified therein, but the same would not mean that even for the purpose of grant of relief in an industrial dispute for adjudication, application of referred constitutional equality scheme adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in the light of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this 9 Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and other relevant factors pointed out by the Court in a catena of decisions shall not be taken into consideration.” Again in A.I.R. 2009 SC 3004 (Jagbir Singh Versus Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another) it has been held as paragraph-15 as follows:- the date “15. It would be, thus, seen that by catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and in stead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. Therefore, the view of the High Court that the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement and back wages in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. However, in our view, the High Court erred in not awarding the appellant while compensation upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages. As a matter of fact, in all the judgments of this Court referred to and relied upon by the High Court while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages, this Court has awarded compensation.” The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4445 of 2006 (Divisional Manager New India Assurance Company Limited Versus A. Sankaralingam) relied upon by the 10 respondent the controversy noticed and decided was whether the benefit of 25B and 25F of the Act was available to a worker on part time basis or not and whether he could claim the status of a workman. It has not applicability to the present controversy. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated only. If the respondent no.2 is compelled approach this Court for compliance of the order, the Court in the contempt jurisdiction may appropriately considered grant of suitable interest to respondent no.2 on both aspects of compensation and the statutory liability under Section 17B. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)