PURAN SINGH Vs. PUNJAB ROADWAYS, TARN TARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - - This writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the award to the extent that it limited the back wages to 25% only. There as on given by the Labour Court is as under : -

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondent has relied on certain principles laid down by the Learned Single Judge in the case Brij Basi Udyog, Mathura v. State of U.P. reported in, 2000(1) RSJ280:2006(2) SCT 168 (Delhi). He has relied on the principle No. (vii) enumerated in paragraph 13 of the judgment which is as under : -

(3.) IN the present case, the Labour Court has tried to divulge the fact that the petitioner is a married man and is having two school going children and has stated that his parents support him and his family and he is helping his father which means that he is earning something by casual labour to make both ends meet. It is difficult to accept this proposition. A man who may be helped by his father to support him and his children who are school going is one thing and being gainfully employed is another thing. If in the circumstances, as mentioned by the Labour Court that the petitioner was helping his father, it cannot be said to be gainful employment. Moreover, in the case of Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, reported in, 1979 PLR 720 it has been held by the Full Bench of this Court that normally the full back wages should be awarded unless the workman is gainfully employed and that was a normal rule though there can be exceptions.