Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Pal vs Presiding Officer on 2 September, 2013
C.W.P. No.15139 of 1996 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.15139 of 1996 (O&M)
Date of decision : 02.09.2013
Balwinder Pal
...... Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana and another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
By this petition the petitioner has challenged that portion of the Award dated 31.01.1996 (Annexure P-1) whereby the claim of back-wages has been restricted to only 50%.
As per the case set out, the services of the petitioner had been wrongly terminated. He sought a reference and the respondent No.2 remained ex-parte. On the basis of his own testimony, the Labour Court set Sharma Ashish 2013.09.06 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.15139 of 1996 (O&M) -2- aside the termination of services of the petitioner and granted him reinstatement with 50% back-wages. As mentioned above, due to the restriction of the claim to 50% that this petition has been filed.
In reply, it has been mentioned that after joining service consequent to the Award on 17.02.1997 the petitioner did not come back on duty after 19.03.1997 and abandoned his job. There is no replication to this averment. As per the learned counsel for respondent No.2, this is a clear indication that the petitioner had some other alternative source of employment because otherwise he would never have abandoned the job after only one month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has however countered by arguing that perusal of the record would show that the petitioner was being victimized and in fact at one stage a contempt notice was issued to the respondent No.2 and, therefore, the averment that the petitioner abandoned his job could not give rise to the irresistible conclusion that he must have had an existing job. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence of any proof having been given by the respondent No.2 that the petitioner remained gainfully employed, during the period he was illegally out of job the full back-wages would have to be paid to him.
The second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 have retained even 50% back-wages which was awarded by the Labour Court.
In my considered opinion, the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 holds water. Had the petitioner not Sharma Ashish 2013.09.06 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.15139 of 1996 (O&M) -3- been employed and had he not secured some alternative source of earning he could not have left the job which he had regained after a lot of struggle. The very fact that this averment has not been controverted in any manner by the petitioner, also strengthens the plea that the petitioner was only interested in getting his back-wages but was not interested in rejoining the job.
As regards retaining of 50% back-wages, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that for the release of the 50% back-wages it was opened to the petitioner to have taken recourse to Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in any case the petitioner owed much more money to the respondent No.2 because an award had been passed under Section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act which had been upheld up to the level of the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has further stated that as per the information provided to him by the petitioner, at that time the order of the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies had been challenged by the petitioner before the Secretary, Co-operation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly accepted that in case the said award has attained finality the petitioner may not be entitled for 50% back-wages but he has prayed that a direction should be issued that in case the said award is set aside the respondent No.2 should make a payment of the amount due.
I find this to be a fair request. Resultantly, even while dismissing this writ petition it is directed that in case the award mentioned Sharma Ashish 2013.09.06 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.15139 of 1996 (O&M) -4- by the respondent No.2 has been set aside the petitioner would approach the respondent No.2 by moving an application in this regard within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and, within a period of two months thereafter the respondent No.2 shall pay such amount as may be found due to the petitioner.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
September 02, 2013 JUDGE
ashish
Sharma Ashish
2013.09.06 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh