C.W.P.Nos.3943 & 3944 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. C.W.P. No.3943 of 1993 Amar Singh ...Petitioner Vs. The Labour Court, Patiala & Ors. ...Respondents 2. C.W.P. No.3944 of 1993 Daljit Singh ...Petitioner Vs. The Labour Court, Patiala & Ors. ...Respondents Date of Decision:22.11.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Ms.Shikha Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Nemo for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) As identical facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the instant writ petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. 2. The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the present writ petitions and emanating from the record, is that petitioners Amar Singh & Daljit Singh (for brevity “the workmen”) were working as Chowkidars. Their services were stated to have been illegally terminated by respondent No.2-management of the District Food & Supplies Controller. In the wake of an industrial dispute raised by the workmen, the appropriate Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Presiding Officer of the Labour Court (in short “the LC”) for adjudication, in view of the provisions of Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. C.W.P.Nos.3943 & 3944 of 1993 -2- 3. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the LC reinstated them (workmen) with continuity of service, but without back wages, by way of impugned awards dated 7.2.1992 (Annexures P1), which, in substance, is (para 9) as under:- “9. In view of the findings on issue No.2 above, I hold that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. So far as the back wages are concerned, it is admitted that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of services. So far as the back wages are concerned, it is admitted that the workman has two children and depend upon his in laws for monthly expenses. It is not believable that the in laws of the workman could provide expenses to him for the last four years or so. This shows that the workman must be working some where for the livelihood of his family but he has suppressed the evidence of his employment. I, therefore, held that he is not entitled to back wages. The workman is directed to report for duty within thirty days of the publication of the award. The reference stands answered accordingly. No order as to costs.” 4. Aggrieved by it, the workmen preferred the instant writ petition partially challenging the impugned awards (Annexures P1), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with her valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petitions in this behalf. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that once the LC has reinstated the workmen with continuity of service, then it ought to have awarded the back wages to them as well, lacks merit. 7. Learned counsel did not point out any specific pleadings or the evidence/material on record, much less cogent, to suggest that the workmen remained out of job during the period of termination of their services. No valid material is forth coming on record even to suggest remotely that the workmen got their names registered in the Employment Exchange in order to search C.W.P.Nos.3943 & 3944 of 1993 -3- employment. That means, they did not make any effort to seek employment. Moreover, Amar Singh workman did not state in his examination-in-chief that he was not gainfully employed and did not earn any wages during the period he remained out of job. The explanation put forth on behalf of workman that he was dependent upon his in-laws, was rightly rejected by the LC. To me, the LC has correctly negatived the claim of back wages to workmen in the absence of any specific pleadings and evidence on record in this relevant connection. 8. Meaning thereby, the LC has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction. Such awards, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the workmen, so, the impugned awards deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the workmen. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petitions are hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 22.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No