CWP No. 11849 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11849 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.04.2010] Rolex Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. R.N.Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Bal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the parties agree that as per the undertaking given by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has been taken back in service and she has joined at Begumpur Khatola, Gurgaon and, therefore, they contend that there is no dispute as of now with regard to her rejoining in service at the place of her transfer. Counsel for the petitioner contends that back wages granted to CWP No. 11849 of 2009 2 respondent No. 2-worklady should not have been granted by the Labour Court on the principle of 'No work No pay'. He further contends that the onus was on the worklady to prove that she had remained unemployed during the said period. He, on this basis, contends that no back wages can be granted to respondent No. 2-worklady. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2-worklady has submitted that the Labour Court has already taken this aspect into consideration and has, instead of granting full back wages, granted only 30% back wages from the date of her termination till the date of her reinstatement. He contends that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court is fully justified and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The matter stands amicably resolved as far as the reinstatement of respondent No. 2-worklady is concerned. Only 30% back wages have been granted by the Labour Court while granting the relief to respondent No. 2-worklady. The consideration, which has weighed in the mind of the Labour Court, is fully justified and the Labour Court has already taken into consideration the fact that the worklady had not been able to prove that she had remained unemployed during the said period. No interference in the discretion exercised by the Labour Court is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the challenge to the back wages by the Management is rejected. The writ petition stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 30, 2010 pj