C.W.P. No.6066 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6066 of 1989 Date of Decision: 08.12.2009 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The Housing Board, Haryana through its Chief Administrator and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Manoj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The solitary point urged for consideration in the writ petition was the relief of back wages which was disallowed to the workman, even while the Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service. The complaint of the workman was that he had been illegally terminated from service, which he was holding in a temporary capacity on a work charged engagement from 23.06.1979 to 31.07.1985 when the termination was effected. While ordering reinstatement, the Labour Court held that the workman had not given any evidence with reference to state of employment and that he had not been gainfully employed C.W.P. No.6066 of 1989 -2- and denied to him the back wages. That is a correct statement of law in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Talwara Cooperative & Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed a clear shift of emphasis by the Courts that there is generally no right for a person to claim back wages and the principle of "no work no pay" would apply in all cases except when it is shown clearly that the workman had not been engaged during that period. Again it has to be seen in the context of the nature of engagement. The workman here was a temporary employee on a work charged basis and his non-employment that ultimately results in a direction for reinstatement shall not admit of back wages also, unless it is shown that the conduct of the employer suggest that it is patently illegal and the workman had suffered economic deprivation during that period. 2. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as without merit. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE Decemeber 08, 2009 Pankaj*