P.G.I. OF M.E. AND RESEARCH, CHANDIGARHversusRAJ KUMAR ETC.

A               P.G.I. OF M.E. AND RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH
                                            v.
                                  RAJ KUMAR ETC.
                                                              ,

                                 NOVEMBER 2, 2000

B           [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]


           labour laws :

           Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25-B, 25-F-Payment of back
C wages for reinstated workman with continuity in service-Tribunal granting
    60% back wages-High Court in a writ petition modifying the order of
    Tribunal by granting full back wages without giving reasons-Validity of-
    Held not valid-Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

          Appellant terminated the services of respondent who has completed
D   240 days of service. In appeal, the Labour Court held that the respondent was
    illegally terminated and directed reinstatement with continuity of service
    under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 awarding 60% of back wages. Single
    Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent granting full
    back wages. Division Bench of the High Court al~o concurred with the decision
E   of the 1Single Judge. Hence this appeal.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court

           HELD : 1.1. While it is true that in the event of failure in compliance
     with Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
F    1947 in the normal course of events the Tribunal is supposed to award back
     wages in its entirety but the discretion is left with the Tribunal in the matter
    of grant of back wages and it is this discretion which must be exercised in
    a judicial and judicious manner depending upon the facts and circumstances
    of each case. The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a
    conclusion that payment of60% wages would comply with the requirement
G   of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance
    with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding
    of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into
    the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the
    High Court to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based
H   on any misappreciation of evidence that would be deemed to be an error of
                                          350
              P.G.I. OF M.E. AND RESEARCH v. RAJ KUMAR                       351
law, which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled        A
to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a
proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material
evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate
though however perverse the order would warrant intervention of the High
Court. [353-G; 354-B, CJ
                                                                                    B
      1.2. Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in
it has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no
straight jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory
sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. It is well settled that
cases are to be decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances        C
and no generalised principle can be deduced but facts shall have to be
considered in its true and proper perspective. (355-A-B, E]

      1.3. The issue raised in the matter of back wages has been dealt with
by the Labour Court in the manner as above having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the matter in the issue upon exercise of its discretion and        D
obviously in a manner which cannot but be judicious in nature. In the event
however, the High Court's interference is sought for, there exists an obligation
on the part of the High Court to record in the judgment, the reasoning before
however denouncing a judgment of an inferior Tribunal, in the absence of
which, the judgment cannot stand the scrutiny of otherwise being reasonable.
There ought to be available in the judgment itself a finding about the perversity   E
or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court and it is only upon recording
the reasons, the High Court has the authority to interfere. Unfortunately, the
High Court did not feel it expedient to record any reason far less any
appreciable reason before denouncing the judgment. [335-F-H]

      Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishna, AIR (1964) SC 477, relied on.
                                                                                    F

      Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Work Pvt.
Ltd, [1979) 1 SCR 563; Rattan Singh v. Union of India, [1997] 11 SCC 396
and P.G.l.ME. & Research, Chandigarh v. Soma & Anr., Civil appeal No.
12558 of 1996, referred to                                                          G
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6576 of
1999 Etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.99 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in LP.A. No. 872of1993.                                                  H
     352                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A                                          WITH

           Civil Appeal No. 657711999 and Civil Appeal No. 6578/99

          D.S. Nehra, Dhruv Mehta, S.K. Mehta and Ms. Shobha with him for the
     Appellant.
B
           M.K. Dua for the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           BANERJEE, J. The Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and
C   Research, Chandigarh is in appeal against the Bench decision of the Punjab
    & Haryana High Court. The only limited question in these three appeals is
    whether the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances of the matter in
    issue was justified in awarding 60% of the back wages while ordering
    reinstatement with continuity of service.
D         The High Court in the matters under appeal did interfere with the order
    of the Labour Court in a petition under Article 226 principally on the ground
    that the Labour Court was in error in the matter of grant of restricted back
    wages to the extent of 60% and the High Court has modified the order of the
    Tribunal and directed entitlement in its entirety. The appeal of appellant
E   hereinbefore the Appellate Bench against the order of the learned Single
    Judge, did not however, yield any benefit and the contentions stand negatived
    by the Appellate Court and hence the appeals before this Court by the grant
    of special leave.

           Incidentally, be it noted that three separate writ petitions were filed
F before the High Court by the three affected workmen against whom the
    Labour Court has declined to pass an order for back wages in its entirety
    but in view of the common question of law and fact the High Court dealt with
    the same in one common judgment and we also feel it expedient to deal with
    the same in this judgment even though three specific appeals have been filed
G   in the matter.

           Learned Single Judge of the High Court drawing inspiration from the
     decision in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd v. Employees of Hindustan Tin
     Works Pvt. Ltd, [1979] I SCR 563 came to the conclusion that there is no
    justification in not awarding the full back wages in the event, the workman
H   is ready to work. The Appellate Court recorded the concurrent finding as
     P.G.l. OF M.E. AND RESEARCH v. RAJ KUMAR [BANERJEE, J.] 353

noticed herein before.                                                                A
       The contextual facts in Civil Appeal No. 6576 of 1999 depict that the
respondent joined the service on September l, 1986 as a helper and worked
up to July 18, 1987 and it thus stands proved that respondent had completed
240 days of service when his services were terminated on July 18, 1987, which         B
however was held to be not in accordance with law and as such the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh came to a finding that the services of Raj
Kumar were illegally terminated by the appellant and as such declared his
entitlement for reinstatement in service with benefit of continuity of service
but awarding only 60% of the back wages.

      The Labour Court, being the final Court of facts and the law being well
                                                                                      c
settled for which we do not intend to dilate, came to a conclusion that
payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirements of law.

      As noticed above, the learned Single Judge of the High Court while
dealing with the matter apart from recording certain decisions of this Court D
did in fact notice a flaw in the matter of grant of the quantum of back wages
and as such granted full quantum therefor. The High Court did not find any
error or erroneous assumption of jurisdiction in the matter of declaration of
payment of back wages. While it is true that admittedly the normal rule being
payment of back wages in its entirety, the High Court while recording normal E
rule has failed to notice any error apparent with the reasoning of the Tribunal
in the matter of grant of restricted back wages. The judgment of the High
Court is totally silent on this score. The High Court ought in such
circumstances as a matter of principle should record the circumstances under
which the use of discretion of the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case
may be, was erroneous warranting interference.                                  F

       While it is true that in the event of failure in compliance with Section
25(F) read with Section 25(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the
normal course of events the Tribunal is supposed to award the back wages
in its entirety but the discretion is left with the Tribunal in the matter of grant   G
of back wages and it is this discretion, which in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.
Ltd case (supra) this Court has stated must be exercised in a judicial and
judicious manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
While however recording the guiding principle for the grant of relief of back
wages this Court in Hindustan's Case, itself reduced the back wages to 75%,
the reason being the contextual facts and circumstances of the case under             H
     354                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A    consideration.

         The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion
  that payment of 60% wages would comply with the requirement of law. The
  finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall
  have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal
B or the Labour Court, It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects
  of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that
  effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation
  of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be
  corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that
C finding of the Labour Court cannot be ~hallenged in a proceeding in a writ
  of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced
  before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate though however
  perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. The
  observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in
D Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishna, AIR (1964) SCC 477.
          Before proceeding with the matter any further let us have a look at the
    decisions cited before this Court by the respective parties in support of their
    respective contentions. Learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the
    appeals placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of
E P.G./.ME. & Research, Chandigarh v. Soma and Anr., (Civil appeal No.12558
    of 1996) wherein this Court expressed an opinion that in the facts and
    circumstances of the case, the Labour Court was justified in restricting the
  · back wages to 50% and the High Court was not justified in interfering with
    the order of the Tribunal and raising the back wages upto 100% and it was
    in that perspective that the appeal was allowed.
F
         The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, placed
   strong reliance on a later decision of this Court in P. G I. of ME. & Research
   Chandigarh v. Vinod Krishan Sharma & Anr., (Civil Appeal No. 1261 of 1992)
  wherein this Court directed payment of balance of 60% of the back wages to
  the respondent within a specified period of time. It may well be noted that
G the decision in Soma's case (supra) has been noticed by this Court in Vinod
  Sharma 's case (supra) wherein this Court apropos the decision in Soma's
  case observed "a mere look at the said judgment shows that it was rendered
  in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. lt'is, therefore, obvious
  that the said decision which centered round its own facts cannot be a
H precedent in the present case which is based on its own facts". We also
     P.G.I. OF M.E. AND RESEARCH v. ~AJ KUMAR [BANERJEE, J.) 355

record our concurrence with the observations made therein.                         A
       Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it
has to be dealt with, in the facts and circumstances of each case and no
straight jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory
sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. As regards the
decision of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra) be it noted        B
that though broad guidelines, as regar~s payment of back wages, have been
laid down by this Court but having regard to the peculiar facts of the matter,
this Court directed payment of 75% back wages only.

       Strong reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in       C
Rattan Singh v. Union of India, [1997] 11 SCC 396, wherein this Court
observed that protection of Section 25 (t) cannot be denied to a workman on
the ground that he was a daily rated worker, having regard to the factum that
the said daily rated worker had continuously worked for more than 240 days
in a year. The industrial jurisprudence as developed in the country also
accepts the same as a true statutory intent in the matter of introduction of       D
the Industrial Disputes Act in the statute book. Significantly, however, in
Rattan Singhs case (supra) this Court thought it fit by reason of contextual
facts to direct payment of consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000 in lieu of back
wages and reinstatement-the reason being the factum of the time lag between
the date of termination and the date of order. It is well settled that cases are   E
to be decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances and no
generalised principle can be deduced but facts shall have to be considered
in its true and proper perspective.

       The issue as raised in the matter of back wages has been dealt with
by the Labour Court in the manner as above having regard to the facts and          F
circumstances of the matter in the issue upon exercise of its discretion and
obviously in a manner which cannot but be judicious in nature. In the event
however the High Court's interference is sought for there exists an obligation
on the part of the High Court to record in the judgment, the reasoning before
however denouncing a judgment of an inferior Tribunal, in the absence of           G
which, the judgment in our view cannot stand the scrutiny of otherwise being
reasonable. There ought to be available in the judgment itself a finding about
the perversity or the erroneous approach of the Labour Court and it is only
upon recording therewith the High Court has the authority to interfere.
Unfortunately, the High Court did not feel it expedient to record any reason
far less any appreciable reason before denouncing the judgment.                    H
    356                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A          In that view of the matter these appeals stand allowed. The orders
    under appeals are set aside and the orders passed by Labour Court stand
    restored. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

    B.S.                                                    Appeals allowed.