IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.10079 of 1988 Date of Decision:- 19.01.2009 The Samundri Roadways Pvt.Ltd., Mukatsar ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.J.C.Verma, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) At the very outset, Mr.J.C.Verma, Sr.Advocate has stated that he would not be in a position to appear in the present case as he as a Senior Advocate cannot, without instructions of a junior Advocate, proceed with the matter. However, on the asking of the Court, Mr.Verma is graceful enough to accept the responsibility of assisting the Court and with his able assistance, I have gone through the Award dated 2.11.1987 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not an employee of the Management and, therefore, the Labour Court could not have proceeded with to decide the same against the Management. However, he submits that even if the said fact is held against the petitioner, still the evidence has been produced in the form of Identity Card (Annexure P-5) wherein the workman has been shown to be employed with Azeemgarh Coop. Transport Society in the year September, 1984. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has put forth his C.W.P.No.10079 of 1988 -2- assertions based upon the award of the Labour Court. He submits that since the services of the workman were terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, he has been rightly reinstated in service and further held entitled to full back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 28.7.1983. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put-forth by the counsel for the parties. A perusal of the award would show that categoric finding as regards the claim of the workman has been given as he was working with the Management and, therefore, I do not see any reason to take a contrary view thereto as the same is based upon the evidence which has been produced by the respective parties before the Labour Court. However, in the light of the fact that there is evidence showing that the workman was gainfully employed and further in the light of the fact that the workman would have not kept himself without any source of income from the date of his termination till the date of re- employment and further that he is an able bodied person who would have in any case been employed and, therefore, it would be just and appropriate that the workman be held entitled to 50% of the back-wages instead of full back- wages as has been granted by the Labour Court. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the petitioners to pay 50% of the back-wages instead of full back-wages as per the award of the Labour Court. As a consequence of the Award passed by the Labour Court, the workman has been reinstated and is working, as asserted by the counsel for the respondent. January 19, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE