C.W.P. No. 2761 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2761 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 27, 2011 Kuljit Singh .....PETITIONER Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gurveen H.Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The workman has filed the instant writ petition against the award dated 30.3.1993 passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, whereby the benefit of back wages has been declined to him, though he has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned award. The Labour Court after considering the evidence led by both the parties, has come to the conclusion that the respondent management illegally terminated the services of the workman without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service. The C.W.P. No. 2761 of 1994 -2- back wages have been declined by the Labour Court while observing that the workman has admitted that his monthly expenses may be Rs.1000-1200 and he has two children and a wife, therefore, it was assumed that the workman was gainfully employed somewhere. It is also admitted fact that in his statement before the Labour Court the workman had stated that he was not employed anywhere during the intervening period. In the instant case the Labour Court has drawn the inference about gainful employment only on the fact that the workman has two children and a wife and he was spending Rs.1000-1200 for their survival. This observation and the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court, in my opinion, is highly unreasonable and perverse, which is a mockery on the unemployed hungers. One has to eat something for his survival. Merely because the workman was spending Rs.1000-2000 on his two children and a wife for their survival, it cannot be presumed at all that he was gainfully employed. The reasoning on which the back wages have been declined cannot stand the test of reasonability. In Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Versus Radhey Shyam (2008) 13 SCC 248 it was held that once the termination of service of an employee is held to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement is ordinarily available to the employee. But the relief of reinstatement with full back wages need not be granted automatically in every case where the Labour Court records the finding that the termination of services of a workman was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. For this purpose, several factors, like the manner and method of selection; nature of appointment, period for which the workman had worked and the delay in raising C.W.P. No. 2761 of 1994 -3- industrial dispute, are required to be taken into consideration. In the present case, the petitioner-workman has been declined the back wages by the Labour Court, arbitrarily. It has not taken into consideration that the services of the workman were terminated after 2-1/2 years of service without any justification and reason. Learned counsel for the respondent-State could not point out any reason or ground on which the petitioner can be denied the back wages from the date he raised the industrial dispute till the date of his reinstatement. Before the Labour Court also the workman did not delay the proceedings. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the denial of back wages to the workman would be wholly unjustified, particularly when termination of his service has been held to be illegal by the Labour Court and he has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service. In my opinion, the Labour Court has declined the back wages to the petitioner-workman without any justification and reason in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the part of the impugned award declining back wages to the workman is set aside to the extent that he is held entitled to full back wages from the date of the demand notice till the date of his reinstatement in addition to the reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court. July 27, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE C.W.P. No. 2761 of 1994 -4-