C.W.P. No. 1700 of 2008. 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 1700 of 2008. Date of decision: 5.2.2008 M/S. District Forest Officer, Aravalli Project Officer, Narnaul now Divisional Forest Officer, Mahendragarh -- Petitioner. Versus Hazari Prashad and another --Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present :- Mr.Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. K.C.PURI, J. District Forest Officer, Aravalli Project Officer, Narnaul now Divisional Forest Officer, Mahendragarh, has challenged the Award dated 03.04.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated with 40% back wages for the period 1.1.1998 to 5.3.1999 and 1.11.1999 to 5.2.2005. Hazari Prasad Workman had joined the petitioner as Mali-cum- Chowkidar on 1.4.1991 and his services were terminated under a settlement dated 11.3.1997 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947and he was taken on duty on 10.3.1997 with continuity of service. His services were again terminated on 1.1.1998 without payment of retrenchment compensation and the petitioner has been reinstated with continuity of service with back wages. In the written statement it is pleaded that the petitioner was never appointed as Mali on 1.4.1991 on daily wages. He worked for 220 C.W.P. No. 1700 of 2008. 2 days in the year 1992,for 149 days in 1993, for 191 days in 1994, for 101 days in 1996, for 92 days in 1997 and for 21 days in the year 1998. The petitioner has not completed 240 days in any calendar year and as such he is not entitled to any relief. It was further pleaded that various departments of Haryana are not Industries under Section 2J of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Tribunal had framed following issues:- 1. Whether termination of services of the petitioner is justified and if not, what relief he is entitled to? OPM. 2. Whether D.F.O. falls within the definition of an industry as alleged? OPM. 3. Relief. Both these issues were decided in favuor of the workman and petition was accepted. It was observed that since petitioner already stands reinstated in to service as such, he is entitled to 40% back wages for the period 1.11.1999 to 5.2.2005. At the very outset, it is pointed out that present writ petition has been filed after one year and ten months of passing the impugned order dated 3.4.2006 (Annexure P-4). The only challenge is regarding back wages and the petitioner has already been stated to be reinstated in to service. In the present case, the petitioner is playing hide and seek with the workman. He joined service on 1.4.1991 and his services were terminated, but under settlement dated 11.3.1997 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, he was taken on duty on 10.3.1997 with continuity of service. The services were terminated on 1.1.1998 and thereafter, he was taken on duty on 6.3.1999. He worked continuously up to October, 1999 and as per his deposition, he was again shunted out from service on 1.11.1999 and was C.W.P. No. 1700 of 2008. 3 taken back on duty on 6.2.2003. The petitioner has allowed the workman to join again and thereby accepting the fact that his reinstatement is valid. The Labour Court has granted back wages to the extent of 40% only for the period for which he was not allowed to work with the petitioner. So, that order of the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity, more so, when the petitioner has himself allowed the workman to join the job. So far as the authority in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh, (2005)5 Supreme Court Cases 591, relied upon by Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, is concerned, that authority is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the workman has worked only for one spell i.e. 16.3.1988 to 28.2.1989 with some break. In the present case, as discussed above, the petitioner has been allowed time and again to join service. So, in view of our above discussion, no ground for interference in the award is made out and consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (K.C.PURI) JUDGE February 5, 2008. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) Anoop JUDGE