MANJEET SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workman in this writ petition seeks to challenge an industrial award dated 19. 02. 1999 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator in ID No. 224/1995 directing his reinstatement without back wages. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is only against non-grant of back wages for the period between the date of termination and the date of the award.

(2.) VIDE award impugned in the present writ petition, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service of respondent No. 2 i. e. Delhi Jal Board. Mr. Anuj aggarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits on instructions from his client that the petitioner has been reinstated by respondent No. 2 in terms of directions contained in the impugned award of the Industrial Adjudicator. The petitioner was denied back wages for the period intervening between the date of his termination and the date of impugned award for cogent reasons contained in the said award. The relevant portion of the impugned award on this aspect is extracted below:-

(3.) MR. Anuj Aggarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi administration AIR 1984 SC 1805 has contended that Rs. 30/- per day earned by the petitioner during the period intervening between the date of his termination till he was reinstated cannot be treated as gainful employment to deny him the benefits of back wages. This argument is of no legal consequence for the reasons for denying back wages given in the impugned award. The industrial Adjudicator has noted in the impugned award that the workman has been ordered to be reinstated in service because of technical ground as the department could not prove its charges due to loss of file and fire. This is an important input which was taken into account by the Industrial Adjudicator while denying back wages to the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar Kindra's case (Supra) is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case.