RAVI KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a workman of respondent No. 3. His services were terminated. He issued demand notice and the Labour Court ordered his reinstatement but did not allow back wages. This writ petition is qua back wages only.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Labour Court has erred in not awarding the back wages. The Labour Court has observed that the petitioner had admitted that he is hale and hearty and has stout body and that he meets his expenses by doing labour job. This was the reason his claim for back wages was dismissed. Counsel for the respondent -Board argued that in view of the admission of the petitioner, it appears that the Labour Court has rightly declined the back wages. We do not agree with the reasons given by the Labour Court for denying back wages. Merely because the man has to survive and for that he may be doing labour job as the petitioner was doing, that will not mean that he is gainfully employed.