IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.720 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 11.12.2009
Ram Karan.
-----Appellant
Vs.
Labour Court and another.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present:- None for the appellant.
Mr. Kulbir Dalal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
---
ORDER:
1. This appeal has been preferred against order of
learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition against order of
the Labour Court declining to enforce award for backwages for
the period during which the workman was proved to be gainfully
employed.
2. The appellant was employed with the management,
running a private hospital, where he worked from 1978 to 1996
when his services were terminated. He raised an industrial
dispute against the order of termination, which was referred for
adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide award
dated 26.3.2003, set aside the order of termination and directed
reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full
LPA No.720 of 2009 2
backwages. It was held that no inquiry was held, which rendered
the termination of service to be illegal. Thereafter, the workman
filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of monetary benefits flowing
from the award. The application was opposed with a plea that the
workman was gainfully employed with Kapil Vohra Eye Hospital,
Ambala City after his services were terminated and prior to his
reinstatement and for that period, he was not entitled to
backwages.
3. The Labour Court vide order dated 6.12.2007 partly
allowed the application, except for the period he was gainfully
employed.
4. The workman filed writ petition in this Court, giving
rise to the impugned order and submitted that once the award
was made in his favour, which became final, he was entitled to
wages for the entire period irrespective of his being gainfully
employed and thus, he could not be denied backwages from
19.6.1996 to 23.12.2004, during which he was gainfully
employed. Learned Single Judge rejected this claim, holding that
the claim of the workman was based on a fraud, on which ground
benefit of award could be partly declined inspite of its finality.
5. On the last date of hearing, none appeared for the
appellant. Even today, none appears for the appellant. We have
perused the record.
6. Learned Single Judge observed:-
LPA No.720 of 2009 3
“XX XX XX XX X
A perusal of the writ petition clearly shows that the
workman has neither denied that he was gainfully
employed from 2002 onwards nor has he pleaded that he
was unemployed for the period for which the Labour Court
has held him gainfully employed and on this ground
rejected his claim of back-wages. What has been asserted in
the writ petition by the petitioner is that the Labour Court
could not go beyond the award and, therefore, the
petitioner-workman was entitled to full back wages from
19.6.1996 i.e. the date of termination till 23.12.2004 i.e. the
day before his date of reinstatement. This clearly brings out
the lust of the workman to gain undue benefit which he is
not entitled to. The back wages are granted to a workman
who due to his illegal termination by the employer
remained unemployed or who is not gainfully employed.
The Management has been able to prove that the workman
was indeed gainfully employed from 2002 onwards, and,
therefore, what is being claimed by the workman beyond
2001 till 23.12.2004 was undue benefit which under law he
cannot be held entitled to. The Labour Court while
exercising its powers under Section 33-C (2) of the Act has
not over-stepped the limits as prescribed under the Statute
nor has it ventured out the limitations as culled out by the
judgments referred to by the counsel for the petitioner or
the Management. It has merely, while exercising its powers
under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, given effect to the award
passed by the Labour Cout on 26.3.2003 (Annexure P-1) on
which the claim of the workman is based. Since the period
for which the workman is entitled to back wages was not
specified in the award, the Labour Court on the basis of the
evidence led by the parties, has determined the period for
which the workman had remained unemployed and has
LPA No.720 of 2009 4
accordingly granted him the benefit of back wages for the
said period. This, by no stretch of imagination, can be said
to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court while
exercising powers under Section 33-C (2) of the Act.”
7. It is, thus, clear that the workman was gainfully
employed for the period in dispute, for which backwages have
been declined. Even though finality of an award may not be
disturbed and findings recorded may be resjudicata, we are
unable to find any error in the view taken by learned Single Judge
that the claim of the workman for the period he was proved to be
gainfully employed was vitiated by fraud, relying on judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by
L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others AIR 1994 SC Court
853.
8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
December 11, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH )
ashwani JUDGE
