JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner-employers by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the award dated 27th August, 1996, published on 27th November, 1996, passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Agra in Adjudication Case No. 26 of 1988, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
2. The following dispute was referred to the labour court for adjudication :
^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed fot; flag] iq= Jh usdjke] ekyh dks fnukad 9-6-83 ls dk;Z ls i`[email protected] fd;k tkuk mfpr [email protected] oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k [email protected]"k ¼fjyhQ½ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS] rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr \**
3. The labour court issued notices to the parties, namely, the workman concerned as well as the employers, who have put in appearance and filed their written statement and adduced the evidence. In short, the workman has set up the case that he was employed with the employers for past ten years as Class IV employee. Apart from other Class IV employees, two gardeners were also employed by the employers and each gardener was allowed to avail 20 days leave during summer vacation of the college without inviting any application. It is further stated that Principal of the College was away from Agra and came back on 25/26th June, 1983. The workman concerned had applied for 20 days leave with effect from 10th June, 1983 to 30th June, 1983 to the Vice-Principal, which has been accepted by him and on his oral consent the workman proceeded on leave on 10th June, 1983. It is after some time when the workman concerned came to know that he is being shown absent in the attendance register, therefore, he made an application on 18th May, 1983 to the Vice-Principal, but on his refusal the same has been sent by Registered post. He further stated that since no reply to this letter was given to the workman concerned, therefore, he remained on leave upto 30th June. 1983 on the basis of prior permission granted by the Vice-Principal. When the workman concerned reported for duty on 30th June, 1983 with an application, the Principal of the College concerned refused to accept the same and he was told that a letter is being written to him he should come with the answer of the aforesaid letter. The workman was continuously reporting for duty till 4th July, 1983, but he was not allowed to work, nor any letter was given to him. Ultimately on 4th July, 1983, the workman again approached the Principal with an application, but he was not allowed to join the duties and in between he received a letter from the College, whereby he was informed that since the workman concerned himself remained absent unauthorisedly himself with effect from afternoon of 9th June, 1993, therefore, his services have been terminated and he was paid amount of retrenchment of one month's salary through cheque.
The workman concerned has protested the same, but to no consequence. Ultimately a dispute was raised. From the above, it is clear that the services of the workman concerned has been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act').
4. As against this the case set up by the workman concerned, the employers have set up the case that since the employer is an educational institution and the workman concerned has absented himself without sanction or grant of leave with effect from 9th June, 1983. Therefore, according to the terms of appointment and conditions of service of the college, his services have been terminated treating it to be abandonment in accordance with law with effect from 9th June, 1983. The provisions of Rule 7 of the Service Rules, which provides that if an employee absented continuously for 15 days without any information, it will be presumed that he has abandoned his service. However, the employers have paid Rs. 1,759.28 by means of draft in lieu of retrenchment compensation and one months' notice, which the workman has refused to accept. The employers have further stated that the services of the workman have been terminated in accordance with law.
5. The labour court after considering the material evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that the fact that employer is an educational institution, it is not taken away from the ambit of an "Industry" as defined under law and the workman comes within the ambit of 'workman'. It is admitted case assuming it to be a case of retrenchment as set up by the workman that the employers have not complied with the provisions of Section 6N of the Act, since the employers had not produced any seniority list, therefore, this can also not be ascertained as to whether the workman was juniormost or not? The services of the workman concerned were terminated without any notice, or authority and without affording any opportunity whatsoever. The labour court relied upon a decision in 1987 (55) FLR 689 and 1993 (67) FLR 11, wherein it is ruled that even in the case of abandonment, the principles of natural justice ought to have been complied with. On the basis of the aforesaid material, pleadings, evidence and the law, the labour court have recorded a finding that the employers have terminated the services of the workman concerned without complying with the provisions of law. The labour court, therefore, answered the reference directing the termination to be illegal and reinstatement of the workman concerned with full back wages and continuity of service.
6. Shri S.N. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employers tried to raise the arguments, which have already been dealt with above. Lastly, it has been submitted by Shri Verma that in view of the settled law in Hindustan Motors Limited v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Anr., 2002 (3) AWC 2444 (SC) : (2002) 6 SCC 41, the workman is not entitled for full back wages as has been held by the labour court. In view of the law laid down aforesaid, I direct that the workman concerned shall be entitled for only 50 per cent of back wages.
7. In view of what has been stated above, the award of the labour court is to be upheld except with the modification that the workman instead full back wages, shall be entitled for only 50 per cent of back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement after deducting the amount, if any, paid to the workman. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the workman concerned within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before them. Needless to say that if the aforesaid amount is not paid to the workman within the period stipulated above, he shall be entitled for the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
8. With the aforesaid modification, the writ petition is allowed in part.