IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2847 of 2009 Date of decision:03.09.2009 Garrison Engineer, M.E.S., Chandigarh and another ...Petitioners versus Dinesh Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Sanjay Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for respondent No.1 ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. With the consent of both the counsel, the writ petition is taken up. 2. The award which was challenged in the writ petition was one of reinstatement and for back wages. At the time of admission, this Court by its order dated 20.04.2009 had directed that notice regarding admission would be limited only to the question of back wages. 3. The termination had been effected in the year 1987 and the reference was sought and filed in the Labour Court only in October, 1991. It was also sought to be proved in evidence of the management that the workman had been otherwise employed and he was earning about Rs.22/- per day. The contention of the management, therefore, Civil Writ Petition No.2847 of 2009 - 2 - was that the workman was gainfully employed and he ought not to have been granted back wages. There was a delay of more than four years in making the demand notice and seeking a reference and that also shall dis-entitle the workman to claim the back wages. 4. On the issue of back wages, the Labour Court had considered the fact that the termination of the year, 1987 was illegal and void ab initio and in view of the delay, the Labour Court had observed that in view of delay it was awarding only 50% of the back wages. As daily wager, he could not be expected to be starving on the road. If he was working somewhere else and obtaining meagre wages of Rs.22/- per day, it cannot be taken as a ground dis-entitling him to obtain back wages. The Labour Court had factored the matter regarding his employment also, while awarding only 50% of the back wages. The discretion exercised is on sound principles and would require no intervention in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.09.2009 sanjeev