IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3412 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : March 30, 2009. M/S Age of Enlightenment Publication (Printers), Faridabad. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III,Faridabad, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. Nos. 5848 and 5849 of 2009. The applications are allowed. Annexure-P-8 is taken on record. C.W.P. No. 3412 of 2009. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure-P-7), passed by the Labour Court-III, Faridabad, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman is not entitled to back wages as he has failed to prove that he had not been gainfully employed during the period in question i.e. from the date of his termination till the passing of the award. He contends that the onus was on the workman to bring some material on the record that he was not gainfully employed during the said period. He relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Versus S.C. Sharma, 2005 (1) S.C.T. 569, to support his contentions put forth by him. He further C.W.P. No. 3412 of 2009. relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited Versus Sushil Kumar, reported in 2008 (2) S.C.C. (Labour and Service), 931. I have gone through the records of the case. There can be no dispute with regard to legal position that the initial burden was on the employee to discharge that he was not gainfully employed during the period in question i.e. from the date of his termination till the date he makes a statement before the Labour Court. A perusal of the statement made before the Labour Court, which has been placed on record as Annexure-P-8, would show that the workman has stated in his statement that I am unemployed and could not get any job. The onus as far as the workman is concerned, stood discharge when he made such a statement before the Labour Court. This statement having gone un-challenged, the contention of the petitioner, cannot be accepted. No evidence has been placed on record to show that the workman was indeed gainfully employed during the said period in question. Counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, submitted that the workman after passing of the award, vide letters dated 28.01.2009 and 16.03.2009, has been asked to join his duties but he failed to do the same. He contends that this shows that the workman is gainfully employed and therefore, he is not coming to join his duties. This contention of counsel for the petitioner, also cannot be accepted as there is nothing on the record to substantiate the submission put forth by counsel for the petitioner. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 30, 2009. sjks. -2-