JUDGMENT
J.V. Gupta, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19- 1 -1983 whereby the award of the Labour Court was set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages, effect from, 1-1-1972. A dispute arisen between a workmen and the employer which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication vide notification dated 17 5 1974. Originally, the workman served a demand notice dated 5- 3-1970 through the Union of the Management of the workers on which the dispute was referred for adjudication to the. Labour Court vide reference No. 214 of 1974. This reference was found incompetent and rejected without adjudication on a techninal ground Subsequent thereto, the workman gave a fresh demand notice dated 26- 3-1974 on which the abovesaid reference was made.
2. The controversy between the parties was whether the services of the workman were terminated or the workman abandoned the services of the employer? The Labour Court found that the plea of the employer that the workman had abandoned the services was wrong. It was held that the termination of the workman was not justified. However, while granting relief, the Labour Court found that “the workman concerned admits during his cross-examination as WW-4 that he had joined M/s. Devi Dass and Sons where he was still employed at Rs. 225/per month. He was drawing Rs. 200/- in the respondent-concern. So under such circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice if compensation, in lieu of re-institemeat be paid to this workman by the management . I think it would not be just or expedient to award him the relief of reinstatement now about 7 years after termination of his services. I accordingly direct the management of the respondent to pay Rs. 800/to this workman as compensation.” The workman challenged the said award by way of writ petition in which it was contended that it has been wrongly held by the Labour Court that the workman was still employed at Rs. 225/- par month. This was found to be wrong by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, he came to the conclusion that the description exercised by the Labour Court as indicated in the impugned order was patently unfounded and unsustainable. The learned Single Judge instead of remanding the case back to the Labour Court himself ordered the workman to be reinstated in service with a further direction that, he would be paid all back wages, with effect from 1-1-1972.
3. At the time of motion hearing on 8-3-1983 the operation of the judgment under appeal was stayed. Later on, another order was passed on 2411-1987 on an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) filed on behalf of the workman, whereby the management was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- on account of arrears and a sum of Rs. 200/- per month during pendency of this appeal. Rupees 200/- per month were to be paid with effect from 1.11.1987. It is not disputed that a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, as directed, was paid to the workman. Lateron, a Civil Misc. application was moved on behalf of the appellant management that since the workman had attained the age of superannunation, the payment of Rs. 200/- to him be suspended. Vide order dated 16,5.1989, it was directed that the workman will prove his date of birth and till then the payment of Rs. 200/-, as directed vide order dated 24-11-1987, was suspended. But since the workman did not prove his date of birth by filing any affidavit, the benefits of Section 17B of the Act remained suspended vide order dated 19.7.1989.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole approach of the learned Single Judge was wrong and illegal. In any case, argued the learned counsel, if the discretion exercised by the Labour Court was not found tenable, then the case should have been remanded to the Labour Court in order to find out, whether the workman was gainfully employed or not According to the learned counsel, no order could be passed for reinstatement in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Reference was made in this respect to Ram Parkash v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundur and Anr., (1988-2) 96 P. L. R. 426. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court was not tenable and the workman was entitled to be reinstated.
5. After hearing the learned caunsel for the parries, we are of the considered view that the order of reinstatement could not be passed in the writ jurisdiction. In case the award of the Labour Court was found to be not tahable, then the case could be remanded to the Labour Court in order to find out as to whether the workman was gainfully employed or not. On this ground alsone, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. However, since the services of the workman were terminated in the year 1970, we do not find it a fit case for remanding the case after such a long period. The Labour Court had awarded Rs. 800/- as compensation to the workman instead of reinstating him on the ground that the workman was gainfully employed. In any case, during the pendency of this appeal, the workman was paid Rs. 5,000/- on account of arrears of back wages and Rs. 200/- per month under Section 17B of the Act Thus taking into consideration the abovesaid facts, we are of the considered view that the amount already paid to the workman will meet the ends of justice. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and the order of the learned Single Jubge is set aside. No costs.