C.W.P. No.15587 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15587 of 2000 Date of Decision:08.09.2009 Sh. Paras Ram .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 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 challenge in the writ petition is a refusal by the Labour Court for the relief of back wages although it ordered reinstatement. When the workman had complained that he had been unlawfully terminated from service on 31.03.1997, the defence by the management was that there had been no termination but the workman had worked even on 01.04.1997 and 02.04.1997 but remained absent from 03.04.1997. A demand notice had been issued on 15.04.1997 to which a reply seems to have been given on 24.04.1997 reiterating the stand that the management had not terminated the service and stated that the workman had joined elsewhere without informing the firm. In the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, it appears that the C.W.P. No.15587 of 2000 -2- management stated that it was always ready to take him back but without back wages. One thing can be noticed that both in the reply to notice which was sent immediately after the demand notice as well as in the reply to the Conciliation officer, the management had contended that there was no termination on their part and that the workman had himself voluntarily abandoned service. 2. The Labour Court still found that since the management had not brought the attendance register to show that he had served on 01.04.1997 and 02.04.1997 that the contention of the workman that he had been illegally terminated ought to have been accepted. However, having regard to the soft stand taken by the management that they had never terminated him and they were willing to take him back, the Court ordered reinstatement but did not order back wages. 3. The workman alone has filed the writ petition claiming back wages but the management has accepted the award and has not challenged the direction for reinstatement. That again shows the conduct of the management that they were never willing to challenge the workman's claim to reinstatement. Curiously, the workman has not joined in spite of award for reinstatement and the justification now proffered through counsel is that he presented himself for duty but the management did not take him back. No document has been filed in Court in expression of his eagerness to rejoin duty. The issue of back wages is, under the present status of law, being approached only from the point of view of whether the workman had been gainfully employed in service and whether the workman was willing to rejoin service. Although there was evidence that the workman was not C.W.P. No.15587 of 2000 -3- employed anywhere, I see this case to be an instance where the workman has exhibited no keenness to join. For all the period that he did not work, he shall not be entitled to any back wages. The award declining back wages in the circumstances appears to be justified and there is no need for interference in the award already passed. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 08, 2009 Pankaj*