IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16371 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2011 Ram Pal, Typewriter Mechanic, Haryana State Electricity Board, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula. ...Petitioner versus Haryana State Electricity Board, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula, through its Secretary, and another. ....Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.4655 of 1990 (O&M) Haryana State Electricity Board, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula, through its Secretary. ...Petitioner versus Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Presiding Officer, and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Prabodh Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.4655 of 1990 and respondent No.1 in CWP No.16371 of 1989. None for the petitioner in CWP No.16371 of 1989 and respondent No.2 in CWP No.4655 of 1990. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- Civil Writ Petition No.16371 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. Both these writ petitions are connected; one at the instance of a workman, challenging the award of the Labour Court denying to him back wages and another is at the instance of the Electricity Board, challenging the order directing reinstatement. In the writ petition filed in CWP No.4655 of 1990 by the Electricity Board, the Court, while admitting the matter on 06.04.1990, has not granted any stay. The dispute before the Labour Court was on a reference after the workman was terminated from service on 10.09.1982 after the assessment of his work and conduct. The Labour Court intervened in favour of the workman holding that the workman had completed 240 days of service and a termination effected without statutory compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not valid. 2. In a case where the Labour Court has found that the workman had completed 240 days, it was justified in directing reinstatement for non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. I cannot find any merit, therefore, for the Board to contend that the order was not proper. Again, if the Labour Court had denied to the workman back wages for the period that he did not work, it is still keeping in with the views of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for 'no work', there could be 'no pay'. This is especially done in case of semi-skilled worker such as, the workman, who as a typewriter mechanic could have been employed Civil Writ Petition No.16371 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - in any institution or even as a freelancer to make a living. Having regard to the nature of work and the easy availability of gainful employment, the Labour Court was justified in denying to the workman the back wages. 3. I find no reason to take a different view from how the Labour Court had dealt with the matter. 4. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 22.09.2011 sanjeev