Divisional Forest Officer vs Sunil Kumar & Others on 10 November, 2008

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                        CWP No. 19141 of 2008.
                        Date of Decision: 10.11.2008.
Divisional Forest Officer.
                                              ....Petitioner
                  Versus


Sunil Kumar & others
                                                ....Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH

Present : Mr. DS Nalwa, Addl. AG Haryana,
for the petitioner.

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 ?

HEMANT GUPTA. J.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award

dated February 3, 2006 (Annexure P-1) whereby, in an industrial

dispute raised by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as

‘Workman’), the back wages for the period 9.8.1999 to 30.6.2000

were awarded.

The workman raised an industrial dispute in respect of

termination of his services on 9.8.1999. It was his case that he was

engaged as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 1.5.1993 but his services have

been retrenched without payment of compensation and thus, such

termination is in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

During the pendency of the reference for adjudication

before the Labour Court, the present petitioner passed an order re-

instating the petitioner and granting benefit of continuous
CWP No. 19141 of 2008. (2)

service. In view of the said fact, learned Labour Court held that

reference to that extent has become redundant but granted benefit of

back wages from the date of termination till the date he was re-

instated in service i.e. from 9.8.1999 to 30.6.2000.

Once the petitioner has decided to re-instate the

workman, the back wages is a necessary consequence. It is not the

case of the petitioner that the workman was gainfully employed

during this period. Apart from the said fact, the period for which back

wages has been granted is too small which does not call for any

interference. So, we do not find any merit in the present petition and

the same is dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE

(NAWAB SINGH)
JUDGE
10.11.2008.

SN