IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9001 of 1987 Date of decision:01.12.2009 Gurmit Singh ....Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 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. The case is of the year 1987 and there is no representation for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent Ms. Monica Chhibbar is present and I have examined the case with her assistance. 2. The writ petition challenges the portion of the award which dis-entitles the workman to the relief of back wages, even when there was a direction for reinstatement to the workman. The learned counsel appearing for the Punjab Roadways, Ms. Monica Chhibbar submits that subsequent to the award 06.08.1985, the workman had been reinstated in service, but subsequently terminated by an order dated 22.05.1997 and the workman had also died subsequently on 11.12.1997. The denial of back wages arose on account of a fact situation noticed by the Labour Civil Writ Petition No.9001 of 1987 - 2- Court that the complained violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act did not avail to the workman for he had not established that he had worked continuously for a period of 240 days. The Court found only violation of Sections 25-G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act and provided for reinstatement. A person, who is entitled to reinstatement is not entitled to the relief of back wages as a matter of course. It shall invariably depend on the nature of evidence which is available relating to the gainful employment or otherwise during the time when there was a forced idleness by the termination of service. The Labour Court had already found that there was no ground made out to grant him back wages and accordingly denied to him the same. 3. Having regard to the subsequent events which have taken place when the workman himself had died and that he was further visited with an order of punishment, there is no ground to re-examine the issue of his entitlement for back wages. The award of the Labour Court is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.12.2009 sanjeev