IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18308 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 05.03.2009 Avtar Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and ors. ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, AAG, Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 18.8.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, vide which the application of the petitioner-workman under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been partly allowed holding him entitlted to back wages for the period 28.2.1995 to 27.2.1996 thereby denying him back wages for the period 28.2.1996 till 15.12.1999 which he had claimed in his application. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the award dated 8.9.1994 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, the workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and he was directed to report within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. He contends that once a finding has been given by the Labour Court on an application moved under Section 33-C (2) of the Act that indeed the workman had, within the time stipulated as per the C.W.P.No.18308 of 2008 -2- award, approached the respondents and submitted his joining report, no fault has been found by the Labour Court in the conduct of the workman and there is lapse on the part of the workman. Denial of wages from 28.2.1996 to 15.12.1999 is totally unjustified. He further contends that the authority under Section 33-C (2) of the Act has been totally ignored by the Labour Court as it does not empower the Labour Court to give a finding with regard to the workman being gainfully or not gainfully employed for that period as the workman is seeking computation under Section 33-C (2) of his back wages. He further contends that no evidence has come on record which would show that the workman had been gainfully employed after 27.2.1996 nor was it the case of the respondent-Management either before the Labour Court or before this Court that he has been employed on some other avocation. He contends, therefore, that the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act deserves to be allowed in toto as claimed by the workman. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has made an endeavour to justify the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. He contends that the Labour Court has granted relief to the petitioner-workman for which he is entitled to and rightly so, not for the subsequent period as he has been unable to show that he was not gainfully employed during the said period. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court after going through the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties has given a categoric finding that respondent-Department is at fault. It has also C.W.P.No.18308 of 2008 -3- been accepted by the Labour Court that the workman had, within the time stipulated as per the award passed in his favour dated 8.9.1994, submitted his joining report. The Labour Court has also accepted that the delay in putting back the workman on the post of Mate, was on the part of the Department. A finding has also been recorded that the respondent- Department should have provided duty of Mate to the applicant-workman and the applicant has rightly refused to join duty as Beldar. All this goes to show that no fault can be attributed to the petitioner-workman. Fault, if any, was of the Department which did not implement the award dated 8.9.1994 (Annexure P-1) in the right earnest and was dilly dallying the reinstatement of the workman. Having come to this conclusion by the Labour Court, the Labour Court had no option but to exercise its powers under Section 33-C (2) of the Act and grant the benefit as claimed by the workman, which was not found fault with as far as the calculations are concerned. It is not the case of the respondent-Management that the workman was gainfully employed during the period in question nor was its stand that because of his being gainfully employed somewhere else, he did not join the post in accordance with the award. The jurisdiction under Section 33-C (2) of the Act of the Labour Court is limited to the extent of computation of the wages in terms of money which the workman is entitled to receive from the employer. There can be no doubt that the workman was entitled to full back-wages as per the award passed by the Labour Court and had the workman been allowed to join within the time stipulated, for which he had indeed submitted his joining report, he would have earned the wages had the Department permitted him to join on the post of Mate. There being no C.W.P.No.18308 of 2008 -4- fault on the part of the workman, as has been held by the Labour Court in its impugned order, I see no justification for depriving the workman the benefit of his wages for the period 28.2.1996 to 15.12.1999. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 18.8.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala on an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Act moved by the petitioner, is modified to the extent that the workman would be entitled to wages for the period from 28.2.1995 till 15.12.1999. Let this relief be granted to the workman within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Any amount paid earlier for this period shall be adjusted. March 05, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No