CWP NO. 9191 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO. 9191 OF 2010 DECIDED ON- 14.01.2011 M/s. Shanti Silicate and Chemical Works …PETITIONER Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad and another ……RESPONDENTS Coram HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Anil Shukla,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr.S.S.Saini, Advocate for respondent no.2. MAHESH GROVER, J(Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P3) by which the respondent no.2 workman has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and complete back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement of the workman recorded during the course of proceedings wherein he has admitted that he has started as workman Gram Secretary to the Panchayat Department of Government of Haryana and that he is drawing a salary of Rs.7750/- and that he has been working since 14.5.2007. The relevant extract of his statement is as under:- “At present I have been working as Gram Secretary in the Panchayat Department of Govt. of Haryana. This is a Govt. department. There the salary is Rs.7750/- per month. I have been working on this post since 14.5.2007. I would not like to join the duty with the respondent management.” CWP NO. 9191 OF 2010 2 In this statement, the workman has stated that he does not wish to join the service of the petitioner management. Attention of this Court was also drawn to the affidavit filed on a prior occasion before the Labour Court on 29.8.2008 wherein the respondent no.2 categorically averred that he remained unemployed from 21.4.2003 to 14.5.2007. The petitioner also does not dispute the fact that the respondent-workman remained unemployed during the said period. It is, thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the categorical stand taken by the respondent-workman that he does not wish to join the services of the petitioner management, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be modified and the clause regarding re-instatement is incapable of being executed. It is also the case of the petitioner that in such eventuality, Tribunal was also wrong in granting full back wages to the respondent and since the workman had conceded that he does not wish to join the services of the management, the most appropriate course would have been to explore the possibility of granting of compensation to the workman and grant of full back wages was not justified. Learned counsel for the respondent very fairly states that he confines his claim to the period from 21.4.2003 to 14.5.2007 i.e the period when he remained unemployed and that the claim should be confined to the benefits of that period. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the award of the Tribunal deserves to be modified in view of the stand of the petitioner and the respondent. It is, therefore, directed that in view of the fact that the respondent had been forced to remain unemployed for a period of four years i.e from 21.4.2003 to 14.5.2007, the CWP NO. 9191 OF 2010 3 ends of justice would be squarely met if the respondent is held entitled to 50% of the back wages that he was drawing. The grant of 50% back wages is justified in the given set of circumstances as the respondent concededly did not work with the petitioner. Let the amount be determined and released to the respondent within a period of two months from today. Disposed of. This order will not affect the rights of the respondent to claim any of his other rights, if he is otherwise entitled to, in accordance with law. 14.01.2011 ( MAHESH GROVER) mamta JUDGE