C.W.P. No. 12448 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12448 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: 25.5.2011 Gurdip Singh ..PETITIONER VS. Labour Court, Bathinda & Anr. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Inderjeet Singh Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** JUDGMENT: The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 30.1.1989 passed by the Labour Court whereby the petitioner has been held entitled to 15% of the back wages for the period 1.1.1986 to 30.4.1988. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed five applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming wages @ Rs.377.10 ps. Per month. It was his case that he is serving the management-society as Salesman since 1979 but the wages for the aforesaid period are not released to him and he has been placed under suspension w.e.f. 1.5.1981. On the other hand, according to the society, the workman was dismissed from service on 26.6.1981 and hence, there exist no employer-employee relation between them. After the contest, the learned Labour Court concluded that their exists employer-employee relationship between the parties. On the strength of evidence adduced on record it further came to the conclusion that the resolution which was produced by the society showing that the services of the workman were terminated, is not genuine document since the words C.W.P. No. 12448 of 1989 2 regarding termination were interpolated lateron. Hence, workman was held to be in continuous service of the society. However, the claim made by the petitioner regarding back wages vide application No. 164 of 1983, 57 of 1985, 37 of 1986 and 169 of 1986 was dismissed, but for the period 1.1.1986 to 30.4.1988 was allowed that too only 15% of the same amounting to Rs.7919.10 ps. Dis-satisfied with the same instant writ petition has been filed by the workman. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the petitioner has held to be continuous in service, the learned Tribunal has erred in not granting back wages for the period 1981 to 1.1.1986 and not in not granting full back wages from 1.1.1986 to 30.4.1988. It is evident from the record that the petitioner-workman himself admitted that during the period of alleged suspension, he never offered himself for any work and admitted that on 1.1.1986 he offered the society for assigning of duties. It is not in dispute that he never worked for the aforesaid period, rather he himself admitted that he remained partial employed during that period elsewhere. In this view of the matter, the learned Tribunal while applying the principle of “No pay No work” rightly declined the back wages to the workman in respect of which application Nos. 164, 57, 37 and 169 were filed. However, considering the fact that despite his asking, no work was assigned to him and the workman, admittedly, remained partial employed elsewhere, the learned Tribunal rightly awarded back wages to the extent of 15% for the period 1.1.1986 to 30.4.1988. While exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court. Even otherwise, this Court is satisfied that on the basis of evidence on record, the Labour Court has arrived at certain findings of fact, which are neither perverse nor based on no evidence. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 25,2011 Jiten