IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.NO.231 of 2006 DATE OF ORDER: 1.4.2008 Dev Dutt Sharma ....Petitioner(s) through Sh.Ajay Kaushik, Advocate Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another .....Respondent(s) through Sh. J.S. Cooner, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH .*.*. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) The appeal has been filed by the workman aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2006 of the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in U.P State Brassware Corporation Ltd & Another v. Udai Narain Pandey, AIR 2006 SC 586 to deny the relief of back wages. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in paragraph 65 of the said judgment, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court had restricted the entitlement of back wages to 25%, though total back wages were not granted to the appellant. The reasons for not granting back wages to the appellant was that the workman had not stated before the Labour Court that he was gainfully employed anywhere during the period in issue. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the onus to prove that the workman had not been gainfully employed during the period in question, was on the workman and that onus having not been discharged, learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the L.P.A.NO.231 of 2006 #2# prayer for grant of back wages. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon State of M.P and others v. Arjunlal Rajak, (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 711. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel. It is no more res-integra that onus to prove that the workman had been gainfully employed or not during the period in question, is on the workman. If the workman had not pleaded that he was not gainfully employed, he will not be entitled to back wages. However, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that in U.P State Brassware Corporation Ltd & Another v. Udai Narain Pandey's case (supra) the reliance on which has been placed by the learned Single Judge, 100 per cent back wages were denied to the workman, as referred hereinabove. In paragraph 65 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has allowed back wages to the extent of 25%, therefore, following the ratio, which has been followed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, we modify the order dated 9.8.2006 of the learned Single Judge to the extent that appellant shall be entitled to 25% back wages. Appeal stands allowed. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) CHIEF JUSTICE April 01, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE