STATE OF HARYANA Vs. VIJENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award dated 12.4.1999 (copy at annexure P/5) vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages and respondent was also awarded costs of Rs. 500/ -. It was further ordered by the Labour Court that in the first instance entire amount of back -wages and litigation expenses shall be paid by P. W.D. Public Health and then it shall be at liberty to recover the same from the officer who arbitrarily terminated the services of the petitioner because the Government should not suffer on account of arbitrary and illegal act of its any officer.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed not by the officer concerned but by the employer i.e. State of Haryana through Executive Engineer, D&P Public Health Division, Sonepat. When the case came up for motion hearing, notice was issued only qua back wages.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent has worked for a short period and that full back wages should not be awarded to him. He has further argued that it is not stated by the respondent in the demand notice (copy annexure P/2) and claim petition (copy annexure P/3) that he was not gainfully employed. As against this learned counsel for the respondent stated that though the respondent has not stated so in the demand notice or the claim statement but he has so stated in his oral statement i.e. deposition before the Labour Court. Counsel for the petitioner argued that this is beyond pleadings. However, when a reinstatement is ordered, back wages is a rule and the employer challenging the award of the back wages has to prove reasons for denying back wages. I am guided on this point by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Palace v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, 1979 PLR 720. Therefore, the absence of pleadings regarding the respondent being unemployed in the demand notice and the claim statement will not help the petitioner.