ISSUE:
Whether the Labour Court had the power under Section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act to modify its award by granting back wages when the original award was silent on the issue?
Whether an employee, whose dismissal is substituted with a lesser punishment, is entitled to back wages for the period of unemployment?
Whether the Labour Court was justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal when a charge of serious misconduct was found to be proved?
RULE:
The power under Section 6(6) is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors or omissions due to accidental slips. It does not permit a review or substantive modification of an award, nor can it be used to grant reliefs that were not originally awarded.
Back wages do not automatically follow reinstatement when dismissal is substituted with a lesser punishment. The grant of back wages requires judicial determination based on factors like the nature of misconduct, gainful employment during the period, and whether the punishment was set aside on merits or only modified.
Interference with punishment requires a finding that it is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. Where serious misconduct is established, mere length of service or past clean record is not a sufficient ground to reduce the penalty. The discretion under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act must be exercised judiciously, not on compassionate grounds.