Judgment:
S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This writ petition was dismissed by me on merits on 11.1.1989 after hearing the counsel for the Management only as the counsel for the respondent/workman was not present. An application has been moved by the respondent/workman stating that his advocate had not been attending the case since 1987 and had returned the file to him. He did not, thereforee, know the date of hearing. I am satisfied with the Explanationn. The writ petition is restored to the file and is being disposed of with this order.
(2) This writ petition is filed by the Management of M/s. Daily Pratap against the Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 10.12.1973, holding that the retrencbment of workman Balram on 9.9.1972 was illegal. The Tribunal further held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages.
(3) Workman Balram was working as a Cartoonist with the petitioner since 1964 as a permanent hand on a salary of Rs. 562.00 per month. He was an active trade unionist and the General Secretary of Pratap, Veer Arjun and Pratap Press Karamchari Sangh (Regd.) at the time of his retrenchment. In May 1972 he had made a grievance in writing to the Management for giving him the benefit of a proper fitment in terms of the Award for Working Journalists. The Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh to which the Trade Union of Daily Pratap, refer- red to above, was affiliated took up the matter with the Management on 6.9.1972 forgivig the benefit of Wage Board fitment to the workman. According to the workman on September. 4, 1972, the Management tried to induce him to resign from his post and join the concern at Jullundur and to undertake to collect advertisements and circulation. The workman refused to resign and go to Jullundur. Thereafter the impugned order of retrenchment was passed by the Management on 9.9.1972.
(4) The Management justified the action of retrenchment stating that they decided to abolish the post of Cartoonist (which the respondent/workman was holding) for 'genuine and bonafide-reasons of economy'. The Management denied all other allegations in regard to the trade union activity and the representation of the petitioner for the wage board benefits. However, in the cross-examination the workman's contentions were mostly admitted by the Management.
(5) On the evidence before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the reason of economic difficulties of the Management was false. The Tribunal found that no account books or balance sheets were produced before the Tribunal. Mr. K. Narendra, the proprietor of the Company, who appeared on behalf of the Management, did not even know what were the monthly expenses on account of salary or what was the financial position. He merely stated that the financial position was not as good as compared to the previous years. But he also admitted that there were 100 employees still working with the Management and the only person to be retrenched was the respondent/workman. The Tribunal further held that the retrenchment was effected not because of economic difficulties but by way of punishment to the respondent/workman for his demands, trade union activities and refusal to resign for joining the duties at Jullundur.
(6) Counsel for the Management submitted before me that the Management had to resort to printing of only four pages instead of eight pages of Daily Pratap, which itself shows that the financial position of the Management was bad, justifying the retrechment. The respondent/workman has, however, pointed out that the number of pages for printing was reduced not at the time of retrenchment in 1972 but eight years thereafter because of the decision of all Urdu papers. This averment of the respondent/workman is not denied. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent workman was not interested in working with the Management and the Management bad no use for him as it had stopped printing cartoons. It is further stated that even after the impugned Award was made, the respondent/workman did not come to join the service and was merely making the applications under Section 33-C of the Act for payment. It is then submitted that the respondent/workman was doing other job and his cartoons are regularly appearing in other daily papers. The respondent/ workman does not admit that be has secured a regular job after bids retrenchment but has admitted that be has been getting employment in different establishments on temporary basis. He has not denied that his cartoons keep on appearing in other journals.
(7) When the original order dismissing the writ petition was passed, in absence of respondent/workman's submissions, the decision was more influenced . by the fact that the Management had to reduce the number of pages of printing. But the facts as they are now disclosed does not show that the number of pages was reduced because of the financial difficulties. In absence of any better evidence, one has to agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the retrenchment of the respondent/workman was not done because of the economic difficulties. The contention of the Management that they had decided to abolish the post of Cartoonist and that the same was in the nature of closure does not cut much ice on the facts of the case. That the respondent/workman was the General Secretary of the. trade-union, that he was fighting for his legitimate demand of the benefit of fitness of the recommendations of the Wage Board are facts which are a pointer to a diffierent direction. The Management has accepted the fact, although willy nilly, that they wanted the respondent/workman to leave the Delhi establishment and to join at Jullundur. This fact also disproves the theory of closure. I, thereforee, agree with the Tribunal that the retrenchment of the respondent/workman is illegal and deserves to be quashed.
(8) From the facts of this case it is clear that the respondent/workman was not keen on rejoining the service. Even after the writ petition was admitted this Court did not give any stay in regard to reinstatement. But the petitioner merely kept 'on making applications under Section 33-C of ;the Industrial Disputes Act. He also made an application under Section 17-B of the Act 'in this Court. The same was dismissed by this Court as the respondent/workman was not ready to rejoin the service with the petitioners. He has also been in employment from time to time and has been earning on the publication of his cartoons. Considering these facts, the proper order would be the payment of compensation and not reinstatement.
(9) Since the respondent/workman was doing other jobs from time to time and was also earning by drawing his cartoons, payment of half the back wages would meet the ends of justice. The petitioners are directed to pay a sum equal to half the wages of the petitioner from 9.9.1973 till the date the respondent/ workman would have normally retired from the employment of the petitioner on the basis of the last salary drawn by the respondent/workman. The payment should be made within one month from today.
(10) The writ petition is dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged.