1995 PLP 371 (PLC)

Khalilur Rehman, Representative for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th March, 1995. The facts of the case are more or less admitted by the parties. The respondents were working in various capacities as sweepers, cleaners, waiters etc. in the Midway House Airport. They had continued in their jobs for periods exceeding nine months and they were considered as permanent. Their services were terminated by order in writing giving reasons that the work load had decreased and the workers had to be retrenched. Their services were no longer required. The respondent workers served them with a grievance notice and filed grievance petition in the Labour Court. Pending the proceedings before the Labour Court the respondent workers were "reinstated in service" and they even applied to the Labour Court that since they had been reinstated the proceedings under section 25‑A, I.R.O. had become infructuous. The learned Labour Court found that the respondents though re‑instated had not been paid their legal dues on termination nor were they paid the back benefits. The. Court therefore allowed them the back benefits. Against this order regarding the payment of back benefits Midway House had filed these appeals. It is the case of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the workers were not re instated but they were re‑employed. Therefore; they cannot claim the back benefits. It is however admitted by the learned Advocate that although their services were terminated considering them to be permanent workers they were not paid their legal dues in respect of the gratuity, notice pay etc. and they have not been paid the dues even up till now.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that unless the workers were `reinstated' their grievance petition would not become infructuous because if they were `re‑employed' they could still prosecute their legal remedy against termination. It has been pointed out that even in the Memo. of appeal's grounds in para. 2 the appellants have admitted that "respondents had been re‑instated in the employment of the appellants that how the petition filed by the respondents for re‑instatement and back benefits can be entertained", so that even in appeal it is an admitted position that the appellants had reinstated the respondents in their service.

3. The only question that has to be decided is regarding the back benefits. The respondents have pointed out that they were sitting idle during the intervening period and they were not gainfully employed during this period.

4. Under the circumstances the learned Labour Court was justified in allowing the back benefits which formed part of the grievance in the grievance petition.

5. In the result the decision of the Labour Court is maintained and the appeals are dismissed. H.B.T./2409/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.