IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12865 of 1995 Date of Decision : May 05, 2010. The Management of M/s Makhand Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. ...... Petitioners. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner . Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Order dated 10.10.1994 (Annexure-P-2) and the Award dated 09.02.1995 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. A perusal of the admission order shows that the present writ petition was admitted and payment of back wages were stayed, vide Order dated 31.08.1995. Counsel for the petitioner contends that, vide the impugned Award, respondent/Workman had been granted 50% back wages, while ordering reinstatement with continuity of service. He contends that in compliance with the Award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent/Workman was reinstated in service. However, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent/Workman had unfortunately expired, therefore, the question of reinstatement does not arise. The only question, therefore, needs to be adjudicated upon is with regard to the grant of back wages to the respondent/Workman. He contends that the C.W.P. No. 12865 of 1995. -2- 50% back wages were granted to the respondent/Workman without any basis especially in the absence of any pleading to that effect. He on this basis contends that the Award, qua grant of 50% back wages, deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Workman submits that the Labour Court had taken into consideration this aspect and while exercising its discretion, the Labour Court would have granted full back wages to respondent/Workman, had he been able to establish that he was not gainfully employed. Keeping that into consideration, the Labour Court had only granted 50% back wages. He on this basis contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference by this Court. He submits that the respondent/workman has left behind his 80 years old mother, wife and three minor children, who have been brought on record as legal heirs of the respondent/Workman, vide Order dated 30.05.2007. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Had the respondent/Workman been able to establish before the Labour Court that he had not been gainfully employed after the date of his termination till the date he made statement before the Court, the Labour Court could have granted 100% back wages. In view of the fact that the said assertion could not be established by the respondent/Workman, the Labour Court had proceeded to grant him only 50% back wages from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement in service. The discretion had been exercised by the Labour Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and this Court is of the view that the exercise of such a discretion does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction especially when only 50% back wages have been granted C.W.P. No. 12865 of 1995. -3- by the Labour Court, while reinstating the respondent/Workman in service. It would also not be out of way to mention here that the Labour Court had given a finding that no departmental inquiry had been held against the respondent/Workman and there was nothing on the record to show that the respondent/Workman had embezzled the amount. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. A direction is issued to the petitioner to release the arrears of back wages to the legal heirs of the respondent No. 2/Workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 05, 2010. sjks.