IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 5473 of 2011 Date of decision: 20.07.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Jagdish Singh. .....Petitioner. Versus Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Satluj Jal Vidut Nigam & Ors. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG, for respondent No. 4. V.K. Sharma, J. The grievance of the petitioner, who has been ordered to be reinstated alongwith seniority and continuity in service from the date of his termination w.e.f. 29.07.2004, as per the impugned award dated 31.07.2010, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, in Reference No. 163 of 2006, Jagdish Singh vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Satluj Jal Vidut Nigam, Limited and others under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the I.D. Act'), is with regard to denial of backwages. He is seeking modification of the impugned award dated 31.07.2010 by grant of full backwages 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... alongwith incidental benefits from the date of his termination. 2. The legal position with regard to grant of backwages is by now fairly settled. It would be seen that grant of such relief is not a natural corollary consequent upon quashing of illegal termination followed by reinstatement alongwith continuity in service and seniority and more so in a case as the present one, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kallakurichi Taluk Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. M. Maria Soosai and others., (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 690. 3. In view of the findings of the learned Tribunal-cum- Labour Court on issue No. 2, which are extracted below, the irresistible conclusion that emerges is that the petitioner is not entitled for any backwages and has been rightly held not entitled to the same: “Issue no. 2 It has not been alleged by the petitioner that he is unemployed. In order to claim back wages, it was incumbent upon he petitioner to have proved this fact that after his termination, he has not been gainfully employed. For want of oral as well as documentary evidence, he has failed to prove this fact. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010 (1) SLJ S.C 70, M/s Ritu Marbals Vs. Prabhakant Shukla that “full back wages cannot be granted mechanically, upon a order of termination be declared illegal. It is further held that reinstatement must not be accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the workman remained out of service and ...3... contributed little or nothing to the Industry. ” In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages. However, since his services had been terminated in contravention of the provisions of the Act, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with seniority and continuity but without back wages. Thus, my answer to this issue is in “Yes” accordingly.” 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, being without any merit. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Sharma) Judge 20th July, 2011 (virender) V.K. Sharma, J.