LPA No. 67 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 67 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: November 27, 2009 Hari Ram ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.T., Chandigarh and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Verma, Advocate for the appellant. ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant-workman against denial of backwages by the Labour Court. 2. The appellant was employed as conductor with Punjab Roadways. On 19.4.1978, on checking of the bus, it was found that fare collected from passengers did not tally with the tickets issued, which were of lessor value. There were similar other instances, on account of which services the appellant were terminated, vide order dated 10.11.1978. The workman raised industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that departmental inquiry had been duly conducted but the finding of the Inquiry Officer was not fair. The Labour Court re-appreciated the evidence under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and held LPA No. 67 of 2009 2 that instead of criminal breach of trust, mis-conduct of the workman was simple negligence. Accordingly, workman was held entitled to reinstatement without backwages. 3. The workman filed writ petition and the management also challenged the award of the Labour Court. Both the petitions were disposed of by a common order by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge held that after the earlier view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M /s Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited vs. The Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited AIR 1979 SC 75, the law had undergone change, as noticed in UP State Brassware Corporation Limited and another vs. Uday Narain Panday (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 479 and full backwages were no longer natural consequence. The court has to take pragmatic view realizing that an industry cannot be compelled to pay to the workman, contributing nothing to it. It was also held that workman had not pleaded that he remained unemployed and in such a situation workman cannot be given backwages. Reference was made to judgment in Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited Vs. Mamni (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 434 and State M.P. and others vs. Arjun Lal Rajak (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 711. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that denial of backwages was not justified and court could, in its discretion, award back wages. He referred to judgment of this Court dated 26.9.2006 in CWP 17400 of 2005 (General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak vs Rambir Singh and another) and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cantonment Executive Officer & Anr. Versus Vijay D. Waani 2008 (4) SCT LPA No. 67 of 2009 3 17, Exe. Engineer, Water Services Div. Haryana versus Kartar Singh 2009 (2) SCT 352 and General Manager, Haryana Roadways Rohtak versus Dilbagh Singh 2009 (3) SCT 570, wherein on facts of those cases, backwages were partly given. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The judgments relied upon are on individual facts. The Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge did not find any case to grant backwages. Learned Single Judge, after analyzing the latest law as well as facts of the present case, did not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Judgments relied upon by learned Single Judge have not been shown to be distinguishable. 7. We do not find find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 27, 2009 (GURDEV SINGH ) perm JUDGE