C.W.P. No. 5011 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5011 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: 23.5.2011 The Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. ..PETITIONER VS. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another. ..RESPONDENTS with C.W.P. No. 3330 of 1992 The Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. ..PETITIONER VS. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Both the above-referred writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner-management, through the aforesaid writ petitions, has impugned the award dated 11.11.1991 and 21.10.1991 respectively by dint of which the termination of services of workmen (respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions) has been held to be illegal and a C.W.P. No. 5011 of 1992 2 direction to re-instate them with all the benefits including pay and emoluments, has been issued. The workmen raised the industrial dispute on the ground that they joined the petitioner-management as a permanent season workers in the year 1974-75 but their services were terminated later without following any procedure of law and in an illegal manner while junior to them were retained in servivce. In reply, the Management though did not seriously disputed the employment of the workmen, but claimed that they were appointed purely on temporary basis for a specific period, which came to an end with the efflux of time. After the contest the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the services of the workmen were terminated in gross violation of the rules and hence, as said above, set aside the order of their termination and ordered for their re-instatement into service with complete benefits. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned awards. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the parties have pointed out that after the passing of the award by the learned Tribunal, the workmen were re-instated into service and on attaining the age of superannuation, they have retired from the Management and now the dispute left is only with regard to the back wages, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The grant of back wages is a discretionary power which has to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and neither strait-jacket formula can be evolved nor a rule of universal C.W.P. No. 5011 of 1992 3 application can be adopted. The Tribunal while ordering the re-instatement of the workmen has held that they shall be deemed to be in service from the season, their services were terminated till re-instatement and are also entitled to all the benefits including pay emoluments etc. which are eligible to the season workmen of their category. Considering the nature of duties the workmen were performing, it cannot be believed that they remained idle during this period. Not only that, the workmen have not adequately discharged the burden of proving the fact that they were not gainfully employed interregnum. In Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai and another, 2005(5) SCC-124, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is necessary to develop a pragmatic approach to problems dogging industrial relations. However, no just solution can be offered, but a golden mean may be arrived at, and opined that interest of justice would be sub-served if the workman is awarded 50 per cent of back wages. Hence, this Court deem it appropriate to grant 50% back wages to the workmen instead of full back wages, from the date of demand notice till their re- instatement The instant petition stands disposed of with the above modification in the impugned awards. A copy of this order be placed in the connected writ petition. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 23,2011 Jiten