IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16494 of 1989 Date of Decision:- 21.01.2009 Punjab Housing Development Board ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.C.Rakhra, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 20.3.1989 (Annexure P-4) of the Labour Court, Jalandhar vide which the workman-respondent No.2 was ordered to be taken back in employment immediately. It was further directed that the Board shall also be liable to pay wages to the workman with effect from 6.11.1986 and it shall also pay Rs.200/- to the workman as costs of the said proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that this Court had only stayed the payment of back-wages i.e. for the period 9.12.1989 to 1.8.1990, the workman was reinstated in service and had continued as such till he expired on 5.12.2006. He submits that CPF amounting to Rs.1,15,861/- has been paid to the legal representatives of the workman on 19.9.2007, GIS amounting to Rs.63791/- on 6.11.2007 and Leave Encashment amounting to Rs.7320/- stands sanctioned on 7.1.2009 C.W.P.No.16494 of 1989 -2- and the payment thereof would be made within a period of one month from today. He further submits that as the workman expired during harness in service, his son, namely, Tarlok Singh has been given appointment on compassionate grounds and he has joined on 8.8.2007 as Clerk with the petitioner-Board. In the light of the above facts, counsel for the petitioner submits that only the back-wages which have been stayed by this Court be ordered to be not paid to the workman and rest of the award may be upheld. Counsel for the respondent states that in the light of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, he would not oppose the said prayer provided the submissions made by counsel for the petiitoner are correct. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed by holding that the workman will not be entitled to back-wages for the period from 6.11.1986 till 20.3.1989 i.e. the date of award. In case, the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner is found to be incorrect or the payment of leave encashment is not released within the time stipulated, it would be open to the legal representatives of respondent No.2-workman to file an appropriate application for recall of the order. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. January 21, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE