Sher Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 December, 2009

C.W.P. No.8875 of 1989                       -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
             AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                           C.W.P. No.8875 of 1989
                           Date of Decision: 15.12.2009


Sher Singh                                   ....Petitioner

                            Versus

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and another
                                                 ....Respondents

Present: Mr. Ramesh Chopra, Advocate
for the petitioner.

None for respondent No.2.

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

-.-

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

1. The only point for consideration is the entitlement of

back wages and the omission of the Labour Court to make

reference about the continuity of service at the time when it

allowed to the workman the relief of reinstatement. A reference

sought by the workman was that he had been unlawfully

terminated from service and the award of the Labour Court

directing reinstatement appears to have been challenged before

this Court in C.W.P. No.6795 of 1985 when the award of the

Labour Court was confirmed. A SLP filed before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court is also reported to have been dismissed.
C.W.P. No.8875 of 1989 -2-

2. While refusing the claim for back wages, the Labour

Court had observed that for a termination, which was made in

October, 1981, the workman had obtained a reference only in the

year 1988 after an enormous delay and therefore, he was not

entitled to consideration of back wages. Learned counsel

appearing for the workman-petitioner contends that although the

demand notice issued does not spell out the date, the postal

acknowledgment which had not been filed before the Labour

Court but a copy of which is produced before this Court as

Annexure P-2, showed that the letter had been delivered on

09.10.1985 and the Assistant Labour Commissioner had also

issued notice referring to the dispute raised by the workman and

called for a hearing on 22.11.1985. The contention of the learned

counsel was, therefore, that the petitioner had taken about 4 years

time and there was not extraordinary delay in approaching the

Court. Having regard to a definite proof available as to when he

issued the demand notice, I would think it would be appropriate

to modify the direction given already by the Labour Court to

accommodate a claim for the workman for back wages at 50%

from the date when he made the demand in October, 1985. The

modification shall, therefore, be that the workman shall also be

entitled to back wages, which will be restricted to 50% calculated

from the date of demand notice on 09.10.1985 till the date of the

award and full back wages from the date of the award till the
C.W.P. No.8875 of 1989 -3-

actual date of reinstatement. The workman shall also be entitled

to continuity of service.

3. The writ petition is allowed subject to modifications as

referred to above. No costs.

(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
December 15, 2009
Pankaj*