HIRA LAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide award dated 5.8.1999 (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) petitioner, Hira Lal, was ordered to be reinstated into service with continuity of service but without back wages. Petitioner challenges that award in this writ petition claiming full back back wages with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition fall within narrow compass and can be fully noticed at the very outset. Petitioner was engaged as daily wager in the office of Executive Engineer. Township Division No. 11, Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kundi, Punjab on 5.8.1988. Petitioner continued to serve in that capacity except when his services were terminated by the respondents on 21.10.98. Notice of demand was served by the petitioner under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as to "the Act"). On 1.3.1996 reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Learned Labour Court vide its award dated 5.8.1999 found that the workman had completed more than 240 days continuous service in a calender year and was entitled to the protection of Section 25 of the Act, which was denied to the petitioner and consequently the order of termination dated 24.2.1991 was illegal, however, while granting the relief keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the workman had admitted that he was working sometime as labourer and was absent from duty earlier denied the back wages to the workman/petitioner. Neither anybody appeared on behalf of respondents nor any reply/written statement was filed on their behalf despite grant of opportunities.

(3.) In view of the undisputed facts afore-noticed, the question that really falls for determination of the Court in this writ petition is whether the workman was essentially entitled to receive full back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case