IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7986 of 1991. Date of Decision: 14.12.2010. Director, State Transport, Punjab Chandigarh & another ....Petitioners Versus Surjit Singh & another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhari, AAG Punjab & Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG Punjab, for the petitioners-State. Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated March 15th, 1990 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana, whereby, Surjit Singh-workman-respondent No.1 was held entitled to re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages. 2. The workman was appointed on May 21st, 1983 as Conductor. His services were terminated on February 22nd, 1985. He challenged his termination on the ground that his services were terminated without notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or compensation. 3. Indisputably, on April 22nd, 1985, the workman was again appointed as Conductor by the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the only grievance of the petitioners is that the workman should not have been allowed back wages for a period of two months because he has failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed else where during that period. It is settled law that when the question of determining the entitlement of a person to back wages is concerned, the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed. The initial burden is on him. In the instant case, the CWP No. 7986 of 1991. (2) workman had not produced any material to prove that he was not gainfully employed. 4. In this view of the matter, there was no justification to grant back wages to the workman. Hence, the petition is accepted to the extent indicated above. 14.12.2010 (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE