Civil Writ Petition No.5601 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.5601 of 1986 Date of Decision:22.10.2008 The State of Haryana and others .....Petitioners Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haryana, Rohtak and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. K.S. Godara, DAG, Haryana for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Jai Veer Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by the State of Haryana and others under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 24.4.1985 Annexure P.3. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Prem Kumar, respondent was posted as Washing Boy with the petitioners vide order dated 28.9.1982. His services were terminated on certain charges of misconduct on his part. He preferred an appeal against such order to the Transport Commissioner, Haryana and simultaneously got a reference made to the Labour Court. The Transport Commissioner vide order dated 17.7.1984 modified the order of punishment and reinstated Prem Kumar- respondent after he was censured with a direction that he would not be paid anything for the period he remained out of service. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak framed the following issues:- 1) Whether no cause of action has accrued in favour of Civil Writ Petition No.5601 of 1986 -2- workman? 2) Whether the reference is bad in law? OPR 3) Whether the termination of service of Shri Prem Kumar was justified and in order? If not, to what relief is he entitled. After hearing the respective representatives of the parties and examining the evidence on record, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that “in view of the fact that the workman has already been reinstated in the month of September, 1984, so is awarded full wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement with benefits of continuity of service.” Feeling aggrieved therewith, this petition has been preferred by the State. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Mr. K.S. Godara, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana representing the State- petitioner urged with great eloquence that the Labour Court ought not to have granted any relief to the workman because he had concealed the factum of filing of appeal from the Labour Court. Even otherwise, he could get the matter referred to the Labour Court only after exhausting the efficacious and statutory remedy of appeal/ revision and the reference should have not been made during the pendency of the departmental appeal and in these premises, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. To tide over these submissions, Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent- workman maintained that there was Civil Writ Petition No.5601 of 1986 -3- no bar for making reference to the Labour Court during pendency of the appeal. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court while deciding Issues No.1 and 2 observed that the “learned Authorised Representative of the respondent (referring to the State) did not press these issues in view of the fact that the workman has since been reinstated in the month of September, 1984.” Thus obviously, the contention raised by the learned State counsel pales into insignificance as the afore-referred issues were not touched upon by State representative before the learned Labour Court. Admittedly, the workman- respondent has been reinstated. There is nothing on the record to show that the workman- respondent has given any undertaking to the petitioner- State that he will not press for the back- wages. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court observed as under:- “In case of reinstatement awarding of backwages is a normal rule by the Court and the present case, reinstatement has been ordered by the respondent itself. So, there are no reasons as to why the workman should not be entitled to back-wages also. So, in view of the fact that the workman has already been reinstated in the month of September, 1984, he is awarded full wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement with benefits of continuity of service.” In the course of arguments, the learned State counsel could not convince as to how the above observations suffer from any illegality or infirmity. To say the least of it, he could not pick holes in the afore- extracted observations. Sequelly, I do not consider it proper to interfere Civil Writ Petition No.5601 of 1986 -4- with the impugned award in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is dismissed. October 22, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No