2005 (12) TMI 562 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether though payment of back wages was not the normal rule yet on the facts of the case the respondent was entitled to 50% of the back wages with 9% interest? Whether Labour Court was not justified in modifying the award as was originally made?

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in review application.

Analysis:
The respondent, appointed as a conductor, faced disciplinary action for not issuing tickets to passengers. After an enquiry, charges were proved, leading to his removal from service. The labour court held the enquiry unfair but denied back wages due to non-permanent status. An application under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Act sought back wages. The labour court modified the award, granting salary, allowances, and continuity of service. The Single Judge allowed 50% back wages with 9% interest, contested in this appeal.

Legal Interpretation:
The appellant challenged the labour court's modification under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Act, arguing it exceeded the Act's scope. Section 152 of CPC allows correction of clerical errors, not substantive changes post-judgment. Courts can't vary judgments without statutory review provisions. The principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit" allows correcting unintentional errors prejudicing parties. The maxim "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" disallows compelling impossible actions. Previous cases affirmed these principles' applicability to Section 6(6) of the U.P. Act.

Judgment:
The Court found the labour court's modification and the High Court's judgment indefensible. Both failed to consider the Act's limitations on post-judgment changes. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders. The legal costs were awarded to the appellant.