IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1294 of 2009. Date of Decision : January 28, 2009. Natha Singh ..... Petitioner. Versus. The Bhadalbad Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited and another .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 08.04.2002 (Anneuxre-P-7) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, wherein the workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the said award by the petitioner-workman claiming full back wages for the period from the date of demand notice till the date of the award. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman has not stated that he has been earning Rs. 1,000/- per month as has been held by the Labour Court, vide its order dated 08.04.2002. What was actually stated by the workman was that he can earn Rs. 1,000/- per month. This assertion of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as it has been specifically stated by the workman that his monthly expenses are about Rs. 1,000/- and that he earns the same by doing some work. On the C.W.P. No. 1294 of 2009. basis of said statement by the workman, the Labour Court has held the workman not entitled to back wages as he was gainfully employed since the date of his termination till the date of award. The requirement of the law is that the workman should have stated that he has not been gainfully employed which is not the case here. That being so, the assertion of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, and therefore, deserves to be rejected. Another ground which persuades me not to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the workman is that the award under challenge is dated 08.04.2002 (Annexure-P-7), and the present writ petition has been filed after a period of almost seven years from the passing of the award. No explanation whatsoever has been put forth in the petition which would explain the delay in challenging the award. On the delay itself, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondents have challenged this award vide C.W.P. No. 17593 of 2002 and the said writ petition stands admitted and is pending for consideration and this writ petition, therefore, deserves to be admitted and heard alongwith the said case. This ground cannot be accepted for the reason that the claim which has been put forth by the petitioner through the present writ petition has not been found by the Court as justified. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 28,2009. sjks. -2-