IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 960 of 2009 in C.W.P. No. 10212 of 2006. Date of Decision : January 20, 2009. Hind Fertilisers and chemicals Industries P. Limited. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer and another. ...... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. B.S. Saini, Advocate, for the applicant-respondent No. 2. Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for the non applicant-petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 960 of 2009. With the consent of the parties, the main writ petition has been taken up for final disposal. C.W.P. No. 10212 of 2006. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 02.05.2006 (Anenxure-P-14), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, wherein the Labour Court had partly accepted the application moved by the workman under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the extent that the workman is entitled to back wages from 01.01.1996 to 22.05.1997, 16 days earned leave, bonus for the years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and also bonus upto 31.12.1999 alongwith 15% interest on the delayed payments. Counsel for the petitioner restricts his challenge to the grant of back wages for the period from 01.01.1996 to 22.05.1997. He submits that for this period, the petitioner is not entitled to pay the back wages as the workman had himself failed to join duty despite of a categoric offer given by the petitioner, thereafter, the proceedings before the Labour Inspector on C.W.P. No. 10212 of 2006. 08.12.1995. The said statement was exhibited as M.H./1 before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has failed to take that into consideration. It is further his submission that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act which came to be adjudicated upon by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City. In the Judgment dated 12.08.2002, a Criminal Case No. 58/2 of 96/2001 relating to this prosecution, the petitioner was acquitted on the specific finding that the workman did not join the service, and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be punished. This Judgment is Ex. M.W./1/1. In the light of these submissions, counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned herein cannot be sustained as far as the grant of back wages from 01.01.1996 to 22.05.1997 is concerned. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the workman has not been given any opportunity to join the service. His services were terminated on 01.05.1988 and the award in his favour was passed on 23.11.1994. He submits that he would, therefore, be entitled to all back wages from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement that would include the period 01.01.1996 to 22.05.1997. It is an admitted fact that as far as the claim made in the application under Section 33 C(2) on which impugned order was passed, the claim was only with regard to the back wages from 01.01.1996 to 22.05.1997 apart from claim of bonus and earned leave alongwith interest. Counsel for the respondent is unable to rebut the statement made by the management offering the workman to join duty which has been placed on record in this writ petition as Annexure-P-2 which was exhibit M.H./1 before the Labour Court wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the -2- C.W.P. No. 10212 of 2006. workman may join duty today i.e. 08.12.1995, was an offer by the management. The workman submitted that he is not well. He will join duty when he is well. The Workman submitted that his lungs are not working properly. Due to this reason, he is not interested in joining the duty and whatever monetary benefits are made out, may be given to him. Counsel for the respondent has tried to wriggle out of his statement by referring to the proceedings dated 27.12.1995 before the Labour Inspector where it has been stated that the petitioner has preferred a writ petition against the award which has been dismissed by the High Court and they were again considering to file writ petition in the High Court. On this basis, he submits that the petitioners were avoiding the implementation of the award so the prosecution was filed against them. This submission of counsel for the respondent goes against him because the prosecution launched on the basis of this report of the Labour Inspector has ended in acquittal of the management as per the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide her Judgment dated 12.08.2002 which has been placed on record as Ex. M.W./1/1. In view of the above position, the order dated 02.05.2006 (Annexure-P-16) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala,cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside to the limited extent which grants the back wages to the respondent workman for the period 01.01.1996 to 22.05.1997 . Writ petition is accordingly allowed with above observations. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 20,2009. sjks. -3-