IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3028 of 1995 Date of decision: 15.05.2009 Bhakra Beas Management Board through its Special Secretary and another .....PETITIONERS VERSUS Pawan Kumar son of Shri Amar Nath and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. N.S.Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 22.02.1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (Annexure P-7), vide which the Labour Court had held the workman entitled to full back wages from the date of termination i.e. 31.07.1989 till his reinstatement i.e. 11.04.1991. According to the statement of claim of the workman, he was employed on daily wage basis as Skilled Mazdoor in the Bhakra Mechanical Division since November, 1986. He continued as such in various sub-divisions when his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.07.1989. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. During the pendency of the case, the workman was taken CWP No. 3028 of 1995 -2- back in service on 11.04.1991 and thereafter made regular w.e.f. 03.04.1992. The only question, therefore, left out to be determined by the Labour Court, was Whether the service of the workman was terminated in violation of the provisions, as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act to ascertain the claim of the workman with regard to continuity of service and back wages. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, the finding on this question was answered in favour of the workman. Since the workman had already been reinstated in service, the only effective relief, the workman could have been granted by the Labour Court, was with regard to continuity of service and the relief of back wages from the date of termination i.e. 31.07.1989 till the date of his reinstatement i.e. 11.04.1991. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of services of the workman was violative of the Industrial Disputes Act. It granted the relief of back wages for the above mentioned period. The relief of back wages having been granted, the Management has preferred the present writ petition challenging this relief vide the award i.e. 22.02.1994 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh. The ground taken for challenging the grant of back wages is that the workman has, neither in his affidavit which he has submitted as an evidence before the Labour Court nor in his assertion during his cross-examination, stated that during the period in question i.e. from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement, he had remained unemployed or that he was not gainfully employed. Counsel for the petitioners has made his submission on these lines and has taken this Court to Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-5, which is the affidavit filed by the workman and his cross-examination respectively. A perusal of these documents clearly show that the assertion made by the CWP No. 3028 of 1995 -3- Management is fully justified as not a word has been averred by the workman claiming therein that during the period of his termination from service till his reinstatement, he had not been gainfully employed or had remained unemployed. Counsel for respondent No. 1, on the basis of the documentary evidence placed on record i.e. Annexures P-4 and P-5, is unable to contradict the submission put forth by the counsel for the petitioner. A settled principle of law is that a claim, which is made by a party, needs to be proved by the said party as the onus is on that party. In the present case, not even an assertion to support the claim of back wages has been made by the workman either in his affidavit or during his cross- examination, rather in his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not have the details as to when he remained unemployed. In this view of the matter, the onus, which was on the workman to assert and prove that he had remained unemployed after his termination, having not been discharged, the relief, which has been granted by the Labour Court vide its impugned award dated 22.02.1994, cannot be sustained as the same is based on no evidence. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 22.02.1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh (Annexure P-7) with regard to the grant of back wages is, hereby, set aside. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 15, 2009 pj Whether referred to Reporters.............................Yes/No. C.M. No. 7953 of 2009 in CWP No. 3028 of 1995 Present: Mr. N.S.Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent No. 1. *** C.M. allowed. With the consent of the parties, the main case is taken up for final disposal today. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 15, 2009 pj