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*