IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.188 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.2.2010 The Daun Khurd Cass Ltd. -----Appellants Vs. The Presiding Officer & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr. Chanderdeep Singh , Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2/caveator ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing writ petition of the appellant -management against the award of the Labour Court. The relief sought has been limited by learned counsel for the appellant to backwages. 2. The respondent-workman was employed with the appellant-management for about 19 years, prior to termination of his services on 3.4.1995, against which an industrial dispute was raised, alleging violation of principles of natural justice, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court LPA No.188 of 2010 held that since no inquiry was held, termination was illegal. Accordingly, the workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full backwages. The management preferred a writ petition in this Court and during pendency thereof, the workman was taken back in service and superannuated. 3. In view of the fact that the workman was reinstated and has retired, learned Single Judge held that no interference was called for with the award including order directing backwages. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Demand Notice itself was two years after the date of order of termination. It is further submitted that there was no acceptable material to show that the workman was not employed after termination of his services. He submits that in view of recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, grant of backwages after reinstatement is no longer a rule and in these circumstances, burdening the appellant with backwages for 4½ years, during which the workman did not render any service to the management, was not justified. 6. Learned counsel for the workman is unable to dispute that Demand Notice was two years after the order of termination. He only submits that in ex-parte proceedings before the Labour Court, the workman stated that he could not get any job after termination of his services. 2 LPA No.188 of 2010 7. We are of the view that case for grant of backwages was not made out. The Labour Court awarded backwages merely as a consequence of setting aside of termination. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433, award for backwages is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and direction for award of backwages is set aside. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 15, 2010 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashwani JUDGE 3