Civil Writ Petition No.12871of 2007. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.12871 of 2007. Date of decision:25-2-2008 Divisional Forest Officer. ...Petitioner. Versus Bijender Singh and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG Haryana. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. The petitioner, in this Civil Writ Petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenges order dated 03.01.2006, Annexure P-3, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak whereby Bijender Singh, respondent No.1 was held entitled to receive an amount of Rs.92,598/- from the management and a direction was given to the management to make payment of the said amount within three months from the date of the order failing which Civil Writ Petition No.12871of 2007. -2- the management was ordered to pay interest @ 6% from the date of order till the amount was paid. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No.1 was engaged on daily wage basis like plantation etc. on availability of work and was also at liberty not to come on the next day even if there was any work available on the next day and in such circumstances, either the petitioner had to suffer or had to engage some other daily wager in order to get work completed. Respondent No.1 was engaged to meet the seasonal work requirements only and it particularly depended on rainy season and allocation of budget by the State Government. Even the requirement of daily wagers varied from time to time depending upon several factors like good rains, any new scheme taken in hand depending upon the budget allocation. It is further averred that respondent No.1 left the job of his own and later on served demand notice and the appropriate Government made a reference to respondent No.2 which was decided in his favour vide award dated 27.1.1999 vide which it was held by the Labour Court that the workman was entitled to be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of service and 25% back wages. After the passing of award, the workman joined duty on 5.3.2000 and prior to it, he never came to join his duty with the petitioner. The respondent No.1 filed an application with respondent No.2 under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the Act) with the averment that the Civil Writ Petition No.12871of 2007. -3- petitioner had failed to pay him 25% back wages along with interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner filed reply to the said application pleading that an amount of Rs.13,572/- had been paid to the respondent No.1 as per his entitlement on account of 25% back wages as per award dated 17.1.1999. It was also pleaded in the reply that respondent No.1 did not join the duty of his own from 17.1.1999 to 5.3.2000 and, therefore, he was not entitled for any pay for that period. The Labour Court after conclusion of evidence passed the impugned order which is being challenged in this Civil Writ Petition. No written statement has been filed. The petitioner/management has calculated the amount payable to the workman as Rs.1,06,170/- and out of that amount, an amount of Rs.13,572/- is stated to have been paid. The management has stated before the Labour Court that the department is ready to make the payment of Rs.92,598/-. The learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.92,598/- within three months from the date of order i.e. 03.01.2006 failing which the management was held liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till this amount was paid. The objection now raised by the petitioner that respondent No.1 is not entitled to wages from 17.1.1999 to 5.3.2000 is ill-founded and is meant only to delay the proceedings of the case. The petitioner-department has itself admitted its liability to the extent of Rs.92,598/- and has simply pleaded before the Labour Court that the Civil Writ Petition No.12871of 2007. -4- said amount shall be paid after sanction. The petitioner is now estopped from taking the plea that respondent No.1 is not entitled to wages from 17.1.1999 to 5.3.2000. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K. C. Puri ) Judge February 25,2008. ( Ashutosh Mohunta ) Jaggi Judge