IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17578 of 2001 Date of decision:13.10.2009 Nem Chand ...Petitioner versus Sub Divisional Officer, Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sub Division No.2, Near Rose Garden, Bathinda and others. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. D.D.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 --- ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The issue for consideration falls in a narrow campus. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman answering a reference in his favour which found that the termination of service by refusal of the 2nd respondent to continue the employment after 17.04.1998 was unjustified, but did not, however, grant any back wages. The workman had stated in the claim statement that he was not gainfully employed during the period and that had not been in any manner refuted by any acceptable evidence. If the Labour Court's retrenchment was accepted as bad, it should have examined the question of back wages from the context of whether the workman had any other gainful employment and whether there was any evidence by the workman that he Civil Writ Petition No.17578 of 2001 - 2 - had not been gainfully employed. If there was an express statement about the employment status and no evidence had been brought by the management to the contrary, the Court should have also awarded back wages. While 'No work no wage' is not always an inviolable principle but would be dependent on the nature of evidence. The Labour Court cannot still deny to a workman his entitlement without setting out any reasons. 2. This was a case where the workman had been employed from May,1989 and his services had been transferred by the 1st respondent along with the work to the 2nd respondent, which was the Municipal Council, Rampura through Executive Officer. The Labour Court had found the conduct of the 2nd respondent in not affording the work to the workman was unjustified and amounted to retrenchment. The workman was a Sewerman to whom the wages would have been a matter of life and death. The denial of the back wages, under such circumstances, was unjustified. The workman shall also be entitled to back wages which right he will have against the 2nd respondent only. 3. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be, however, no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) 13.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev