TARSEM SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The services of the petitioner, who was working as a conductor in Punjab Roadways, Moga, were terminated vide order dated 5.11.1982 after holding a departmental enquiry. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide award dated 21.3.1985 held that the termination of services of the workman was not termination of services of the workman was not justified and he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The relief of back wages was primarily declined on the ground that the workman was gainfully employed and getting Rs. 200.00 per month during that period. The petitioner through this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the award of the Labour Court to the extent that it was not justified in declining the back-wages to the petitioner only on the ground that he was gainfully employed and earning Rs. 200.00 per month during this period.

(2.) The petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 540.00 per month when his services were terminated and he had put in about eight years service at that time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workman could not be denied back-wages only on the ground that he was gainfully employed and getting Rs. 200.00 per month. The petitioner could be denied back-wages only if he was gainfully employed and getting wages in the sum of Rs. 540.00 per month or any amount higher thereto. The learned counsel also contended that grant of back-wages is a matter of course when the order terminating the service is set-aside by the Labour Court. Back-wages are declined only in cases where either the workman was gainfully employed or there are other circumstances justifying such an action.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even as per the return filed by the respondent, the petitioner-workman was gainfully employed and earning only Rs. 200.00 per month, however, when the matter was taken up before the Lok Adalat the petitioner-workman stated that he would be satisfied if it is treated that he was gainfully employed during that period and was getting Rs. 250.00 per month instead of Rs. 200.00 per month. Nothing has been brought out by the respondents to show as to why the petitioners was not entitled to full back-wages after adjusting a sum of Rs. 250.00 per month for the entire period he remained unemployed i.e. from 5.11.1982 to 21.3.1985. The petitioner in my view is entitled to full back-wages minus a sum of Rs. 250.00 per month, the rate of which he was gainfully employed during the period 5.11.1982 to 21.3.1985.