Civil Writ Petition No. 19051 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19051 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.12.2010 State of Haryana ...Petitioner Versus Simla and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the petitioner. None for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. This is rather an unfortunate case of a daily labourer working in PWD (B &R), Haryana, namely Jai Bhagwan who was engaged during March 1990 and was terminated in November 1996. Jai Bhagwan sought reference of the dispute relating to his termination and the same was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Panipat on 03.02.1997. The Labour Court had decided the reference in favour of Jai Bhagwan on 05.09.2002. This award was challenged by the State through Civil Writ Petition No. 2151 of 2003. While issuing notice, this Court stayed the payment of backwages to the workman (Jai Bhagwan). During the pendency of writ petition, the petitioner-State reinstated the workman in service on 08.06.2005. The workman, thereafter, filed an application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act and claimed wages for the period from 06.09.2002 to 07.06.2005, which Civil Writ Petition No. 19051 of 2009 2 is the period during which he was not taken back in service despite the order and the award passed in his favour. This claim of the workman was dismissed by the authority on 07.09.2007. The workman then had filed an appeal against the same before the ADJ, Sonepat, which was allowed on 31.01.2008 directing payment of amount of Rs. 73922.25 within a period of 3 months. The State has, therefore, filed the present writ petition to impugn the order dated 31.01.2008. In between, the unfortunate workman has breathed his last fighting for getting payment of his due wages. The State, therefore, is pursuing the present writ petition against his legal heirs i.e. wife and three sons of late workman Jai Bhagwan. Mr. Rathee relies upon an order passed in the writ petition filed by the State through which the award passed by the labour Court was impugned and where this Court had issued direction for staying the payment of backwages. The counsel, however, concedes that the said writ petition was decided on 12.02.2008. The writ was dismissed while the workman had given up his claim for backwages. The workman had already been reinstated into service which was the reason for this court to dismiss the writ petition. Thus, the award passed by the labour Court has acquired finality. Once the dispute relating to the termination of the workman has acquired finality, the State is required to implement the award. The State had rather taken nearly 3 years for reinstating the workman into service. The question, thus, to be seen is whether Civil Writ Petition No. 19051 of 2009 3 there would be any justification on the part of the State to decline the wages for the period for which the workman, though entitled to reinstatement but was not reinstated and thus denied the wages to which he was entitled. The submission that the workman had himself given up the claim for the backwages, is clearly misconceived. No claim in regard to the backwages was made before the authority exercising jurisdiction under the Payment of Wages Act. The claim made by the Late workman related to that period for which he was entitled to service but was denied his rightful dues. The plea that the petitioner had given up backwages and thus the claim could not have been allowed is misplaced. The payment for wages is for the period the workman was kept out of service despite order. The wages for the period after award would not be backwages as the backwages could only be for the period upto the date of award. Being a model employer, the State is seen acting in an unfair manner. A poor workman had struggled for four years before the labour Court and was able to get an order of reinstatement in his favour. He had thereafter remained before this Court from 2003- 2008 for nearly 5 years to get his right settled in terms of the award in his favour. Once the award of labour Court has acquired finality, there would not have been any justification on the part of the State to deny reinstatement of the workman. The State has first acted in a manner which is not legal and then is relying upon that illegality to deny workman's claim. The workman had acquired this right on the basis of judgment passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction and could claim reinstatement. The State took nearly 3 years to accede Civil Writ Petition No. 19051 of 2009 4 to this claim of the poor workman and now is denying the wages for that period to him despite direction in this regard by raising a plea which is misplaced and misconceived. The State is not even taking into consideration the fact that the workman had died while seeking payment of his claim. There is no valid ground with the State to impugn this order. The liability of pay and wages for the period for which the workman was denied reinstatement cannot be denied. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Since the poor workman had not only been denied his rightful due but his LRs have been made to fight and struggle to get it without justification, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs assessed Rs. 10,000/-, to be paid to the respondents-LRs of workman. December 21, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE