IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7810 of 1991. Date of Decision: 14.12.2010. The State Transport Punjab & another ....Petitioners Versus Surjan 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 September 14th, 1990 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, whereby, Surjan 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 August 22nd, 1984 as Conductor. His services were terminated on May 22nd, 1985. He challenged his termination on the ground that his services were terminated without notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or compensation. 3. Indisputably, on October 3rd, 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 five months and eight days 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 CWP No. 7810 of 1991. (2) gainfully employed. The initial burden is on him. In the instant case, the 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