By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and award of the Labour Court passed in Reference (LCN) No. 125 of 1998 on 23.10.2003 whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and to pay 20% back wages. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was working as work charge “Karkoon”. He remained absent from duty unauthorizedly for a long period. Notice was given to the respondent for resuming duty on 9.6.1997. Since he did not resume duty, an intimation was given to him on 19.6.1997 asking him to resume the duty. The respondent failed to resume the duty and an order of his dismissal from service was passed on 1.7.1998. Therefore, he raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court.
3. The petitioner resisted the statement of claim of the respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent neither resumed duty as per the notice given to him on 9.6.1997 nor did he give any reply. It is also submitted that for appointment of workcharge Karkoon, no procedure as prescribed for regular employee is being made. Besides, the respondent has not completed 240 days continuous service. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for rejection of the Reference filed by the respondent.
4. The Labour Court, after hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, passed the order as aforesaid. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.
5. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Labour Court has committed error in reinstating the respondent with continuity of service and ordering to pay 20 per cent back wages to the respondent in spite of several defaults committed by him. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the respondent has retired from service on 31.1.2011. In that view of the matter, question of his continuing in service does not arise.
7. I have perused the record. From the evidence on record, it is noticed that the procedure for departmental inquiry is not followed. In that view of the matter, the order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement is just and proper. However, the Labour Court ought not to have granted backwages as serious lapses on the part of the respondent were pointed out.
8. Accordingly, the order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement of the respondent in service is confirmed. Continuity of service is granted for the purpose of retirement benefits. Order of the Labour Court granting 20 per cent backwages is quashed and set aside. To the aforesaid extent the order of the Labour Court is modifed. The petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute.
9. Retirement dues will be paid to the respondent within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)