IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17262 of 2000 Date of decision: 09.09.2009 Jaibir Singh ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the portion of the award that restricted the claim of the workman only to 20% of back wages even while upholding the contention of the workman and granting to him the relief of reinstatement. The order of termination was purported to have been effected on 01.09.1988 and the petitioner had originally filed a writ petition challenging the same. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition and seek for a reference before the Labor Court for adjudication. The case was ultimately referred to the Labour Court on 07.02.1997, that is, nearly nine years after the termination and the award came to be passed on 17.05.1999. The petitioner had himself in a away contributed to the delay by approaching the High Court first, before seeking for a reference for adjudication before the Labour Court. The Civil Writ Petition No.17262 of 2000 - 2 - workman was a daily wager and for the days when he was not working he would not normally be entitled to his wages. The Labour Court had, under the circumstances directed reinstatement and awarded only 20% of the back wages, although it had not set out of the reasons that were required to be stated. The counsel for the respondent states that the Corporation-Haryana Roadways had also challenged the award in so far as it allowed the claim of the workman for reinstatement in Civil Writ Petition No.3496 of 2001, but it was dismissed on 12.03.2001 and the award had become final as regards the issue of reinstatement. 2. The challenge to the award by the workman in the writ petition is to the effect that the management was bound to prove that the workman was not gainfully employed during the period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has noticed a shift in emphasis and the need for proof by the workman that he was gainfully employed in order that he makes out a claim for back wages. It has been repeatedly held that the entitlement of back wages shall not be a matter of course and the workman is bound to prove such entitlement. Having regard to the nature of his job and further regard to the fact that the Court had ordered reinstatement in case of a daily rated worker, who had at the time of termination put in about only two years of service, a sufficient recompense by restriction of back wages to 20% only was justified. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.09.2009 sanjeev