JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The order dated 15th February, 2002 is hereby recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1 as well as Km. Suman Sirohi, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, the concerned workman.
3. The petitioners-employers aggrieved by the award of the labour Court, U.P. Agra dated 29th October, 1996, passed in adjudication case No. 311 of 1989, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure- '1' to the writ petition.
4. The following dispute was referred to the labour Court for adjudication.
"KYA SEWAYOJKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK NANAK CHANDRA, PAD ACCOUNTS CLERK Kl SEWAYEN AADESH DINANK 28.10.1988 SE SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA / ATHWA VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHIN, TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/ANUTOSH (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI, TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT?"
5. The labour Court issued notices to the parties and the parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced the evidenced. In short, the case set up by the workman concern before the labour Court is that he has been employed on the post of Accounts-cum-Clerk on 8th April, 1982 and he has worked in different period up to 31st October, 1988 and his services were given artificial breaks, otherwise his services will be continue. The workman further submitted that his work and conduct was satisfactory and he has worked for more than 240 days in preceding calendar year, but his services were arbitrarily terminated without complying with the provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (In short 'Act') whereas on similar footing other workmen, who were appointed like the concerned workman, are working regularly.
6. As against this, the case set up by the employers was that the reference is bad, because workman's services were not terminated on 28th October, 1988. The employers further submitted that the workman was neither regular, nor permanent, he was engaged from time to time according to the exigency and his services were not terminated by the employers because as per the fixed term appointment, his services were automatically come to an end on expiry of the period and his wages etc. have already been paid to him. In these circumstances, the provision of Section 6-N of the Act will not be applicable, as the services of the workman were for fixed period.
7. The labour Court considered the evidence and pleadings of the parties and arrived at the conclusion, as asserted in paragraph 10 of the award, that the workman was engaged with effect from 8th April, 1983 till 31st October, 1988 for a short period so that he may not be regularized. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman concern has worked 301 days in one calendar year. The labour Court further recorded a finding that the employers were duty bound to comply with the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, which admittedly have not been complied with. Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the workman concern has relied upon a decision reported in JT 2003 (Suppl.) (1) S.C. page 383 U.P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Company Limited v. Ramanuj Yadav and Ors., wherein in similar circumstances, the Supreme Court has found that the termination without complying with the provision of Section 6-N of the Act, is illegal and workman is entitled for re-instatement. The similar grievance is here that the labour Court has awarded the full back wages to the workman concern.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-employers lastly submitted that admittedly from the date of termination of his services till today, the workman has not worked for a single day. In this view of the matter, on the principle of 'No Work No Pay', the workman concern is not entitled for any back wages and the labour Court has committed an error in awarding full back wages to him. From the date of the award till today the workman has not worked because of the interim order passed by this Court. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in (2002) S.C. Vol.6, page 41 Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Anr., the award of the labour Court is modified to the extent that the workman concern shall be entitled only fifty per cent wages, instead of full back wages from the date of termination of his services till the date of reinstatement.
9. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed except the modification to the extent, referred to above. Rest of the award is upheld. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.