C.R. No.5281 of 2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5281 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.08.2009 State of Haryana etc. .....Petitioners Versus Ashok Kumar ....Respondent Present: Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the petitioners. Ms. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The execution levied by the decree-holder was in respect of a decree which set aside an order of termination. In the judgment passed by the Appellate Court in reversal of the trial Court's decision, the Appellate Court had also, while setting aside the order of termination, granted permission to the management to resort to independent departmental proceedings and proceed with the same in accordance with law. 2. It is an undisputed fact that as per the terms of the decree, the workman had been reinstated on 07.06.2000. The workman, however, had not been paid his past back wages and therefore, he filed an application for attachment by resort to proceedings under Order 21 CPC and the Executing Court admitted the application while rejecting C.R. No.5281 of 2002 (O&M) -2- the contention of the judgment-debtor that there had been no specific provision for payment of back wages and therefore, the Executing Court cannot go behind the terms of the decree. 3. Before me, it is argued by learned counsel for the the State, Sh. Nalwa that the Appellate Court judgment and decree are silent about the entitlement of the plaintiff to secure back wages and therefore, the execution petition for recovery of back wages was not maintainable. Learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder refers me to a Full Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in Parkash Chand Vs. S.S. Grewal, IAS, Secretary to Govt. Punjab and others (1950- 1988) 5 RSJ 685 which laid down that the effect of a declaratory decree directing that dismissal of a Government servant to be illegal would mean that such a dismissed employee is restored to his status of a Government servant and would be entitled to enjoy all the benefits and privileges including emoluments for the entire period during which his dismissal remained in operation, subject to the law of limitation and other defences open to the Government. In my view, the judgment cannot help in any way the decree-holder to apply for execution for back wages. It is one thing to state that a workman is entitled to back wages but quite another to seek for its enforcement before a Civil Court when the decree does not provide for that relief. The objection of the Government should be only taken as falling within the parameters of law that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The defence ought not to be understood as denying the workman the right to back wages. He may have other remedies before some other forum but it is beyond the ken of enquiry for the C.R. No.5281 of 2002 (O&M) -3- present. The direction of the Executing Court for further process in execution as though the decree contained reference also to any specified sum as payable towards back wages was clearly wrong. 4. The order of the Executing Court is set aside and the civil revision is allowed but, without costs. It is clarified that this order ought not to be construed as denying the workman of what according to him is legitimately due. It only denies to him a particular procedure for enforcement of his alleged right. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 06, 2009 Pankaj*