In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 832 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.01.2010 Santokh Singh ....Appellants Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. R.K. Chugh, Advocate for the appellant. ... Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition of the appellant challenging award of the Labour Court whereby back wages were declined to the workman while he was reinstated with continuity in service. 2. The appellant was appointed as a Driver with the Transport Department, Haryana. He was dismissed from service. He raised an industrial dispute alleging violation of procedure for passing order of his dismissal. The Labour Court held that the management did not hold proper enquiry and on that ground order of his reinstatement was passed. It was, however, held that the workman was not entitled to back wages. 3. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court, which has been dismissed. It was held that the workman remained absent from duty and did not respond to letters asking him to join service as noted in the award of the Labour Court and in such a situation, claim for back wages was rightly declined. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. It is clear from the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court and learned Single Judge that the workman was absent from duty and was dismissed from service in the year 1979. He has been reinstated in service after twelve years. No evidence has been led that the workman was not employed during this period. He was a technically qualified Driver. It cannot be presumed that he remained unemployed during the said period. In the circumstances, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetic Ltd. Vs. K.P. Aggarwal, 2007(2) SCC 433, the management cannot be burdened with the liability of back wages for the period the workman did not work. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge ( Alok Singh ) Judge 20.01.2010 sk.