C.W.P. No.8875 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8875 of 1989 Date of Decision: 15.12.2009 Sher Singh ....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ramesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 only point for consideration is the entitlement of back wages and the omission of the Labour Court to make reference about the continuity of service at the time when it allowed to the workman the relief of reinstatement. A reference sought by the workman was that he had been unlawfully terminated from service and the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement appears to have been challenged before this Court in C.W.P. No.6795 of 1985 when the award of the Labour Court was confirmed. A SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also reported to have been dismissed. C.W.P. No.8875 of 1989 -2- 2. While refusing the claim for back wages, the Labour Court had observed that for a termination, which was made in October, 1981, the workman had obtained a reference only in the year 1988 after an enormous delay and therefore, he was not entitled to consideration of back wages. Learned counsel appearing for the workman-petitioner contends that although the demand notice issued does not spell out the date, the postal acknowledgment which had not been filed before the Labour Court but a copy of which is produced before this Court as Annexure P-2, showed that the letter had been delivered on 09.10.1985 and the Assistant Labour Commissioner had also issued notice referring to the dispute raised by the workman and called for a hearing on 22.11.1985. The contention of the learned counsel was, therefore, that the petitioner had taken about 4 years time and there was not extraordinary delay in approaching the Court. Having regard to a definite proof available as to when he issued the demand notice, I would think it would be appropriate to modify the direction given already by the Labour Court to accommodate a claim for the workman for back wages at 50% from the date when he made the demand in October, 1985. The modification shall, therefore, be that the workman shall also be entitled to back wages, which will be restricted to 50% calculated from the date of demand notice on 09.10.1985 till the date of the award and full back wages from the date of the award till the C.W.P. No.8875 of 1989 -3- actual date of reinstatement. The workman shall also be entitled to continuity of service. 3. The writ petition is allowed subject to modifications as referred to above. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 15, 2009 Pankaj*