IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6069 of 2010 Date of decision : September 29, 2011 Babu Ram …Petitioner. Versus Divisional Manager, H.P. State Forest Corporation …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Services of the petitioner, who had been working as Resin Watcher, on daily-wage basis, with the respondent, were terminated, when a case of theft of some property of the respondent was registered against him. He challenged the order of termination, by getting a reference made to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Labour Court, vide impugned award Annexure P-1, which is dated 7th August, 2010, held that the order of termination of services of the petitioner was illegal. Consequently, respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner. However, back wages were denied to the petitioner by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Reetu Marbles versus Prabhakant Shukla, (2010) 2 SCC 70. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of denial of back wages. So, he has filed the present petition, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking review of the award of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court and for issuing a direction to the respondent to pay the back wages. Respondent, in reply, has stated that since there was allegation of theft of the property of the respondent against the petitioner, in respect of which petitioner had been appointed as Watcher, he is not entitled to any wages. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner had been discharged in the case of theft, as some other persons had been found to have committed the theft and the petitioner was found to be in no way responsible for that theft, leave alone his being involved in the actual theft, directly or indirectly. His termination has been held to be illegal by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, on merits. Respondent has not challenged this finding or the direction of the Tribunal for reinstatement of the petitioner. …3… 5. By the very judgment, relied upon by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, for denying the back wages, Hon’ble supreme Court awarded 50 per cent back wages, with the observation that the Labour Court, having found the termination to be illegal, was unjustified in granting no back wages at all. Reference may be made to Para-20 of the aforesaid judgment, as reported in (2010) 2 SCC 70. 6. In another case, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 487 (Manager, K.V.S.S. Mandawar and another versus Mukesh Kumar Sharma), Hon’ble Supreme Court again awarded 50 per cent back wages to an employee, whose services were held to have been illegally terminated, in the year 1990. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent also places reliance upon two cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court. First is Manoj Kumar versus Government of NCT of Delhi and others, (2010) 11 SCC 702. Petitioner, in that case, had applied for the post of Constable, which was advertised in May 2007 and was selected and appointed in May 2008. Lateron, his services were terminated, on the ground that the date of birth, intimated by him, was wrong to his knowledge. He challenged his termination, which was set aside by the Court and he was ordered to be reinstated and deputed …4… for training as Constable, without back wages. In that case, the date of birth, appearing in the Matriculation Certificate was incorrect. Employees reinstatement was ordered with the observation that incorrect date of birth having appeared in the Matriculation Certificate, long before the petitioner applied for the post, he could not be said to have manipulated the date of birth, for seeking employment. Since the date of birth of the employee in that case was found to be wrong, so it is in this context that the order of the Supreme Court, denying back wages, is to be seen. 8. 9. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is in South Bengal State Transport Corporation versus Ashok Kumar Ghosh and others, (2010) 11 SCC 71. In that case, employee had been denied the wages, because the order of his punishment was set aside and reinstatement ordered on technical grounds. Thus, the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the facts of this case. 10. As a result of the abovestated position, writ petition is allowed and the award of the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is modified, to the extent that the petitioner is held to be entitled to back …5… wages from the date of the order of termination, i.e. 12th February, 1997, at the rate of 50 per cent of the wages, which he was getting at the time of his termination and as revised from time to time. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 29, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J