SIYA RAM GAUR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the workman whereby he is aggrieved against the denial of back wages since only 25% back wages have been granted along with continuity of service. It is also a matter of fact that in pursuance of the award dated 30.5.1995, the petitioner stands reinstated. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was denied full back wages though his entitlement for reinstatement was decided in his favour only on the ground that two witnesses of the management had deposed that he was working as a tailor and earning Rs. 2000-3000/- per month and secondly since that a month prior to the award, management had submitted an application that they were willing to take him back in service to which he had refused and taken the stand that he should only be taken back as a regular employee and after payment of back wages. The observations of the Labour Court which led to relief being denied read as under:-

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has accordingly submitted that it was never put to the petitioner regarding the fact of employment and no cross-examination was conducted by the management regarding the fact that he remained employed as a tailor and was earning as per finding recorded by the Labour Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner had cross-examined the witnesses of the management and the management witness had not brought any written proof on record regarding employment of the workman during the period of retrenchment. It is, thus, submitted that inference drawn against the workman was without any basis.

(3.) Counsel for the management on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner only worked from 17.2.1988 to 13.7.1989 and had been employed against the other person who had taken medical leave and, therefore, after the regular employee joined, his services were dispensed with and only due to the fact that he had worked for more than 240 days, the benefit of reinstatement had been granted by the Labour Court. The length of the service of the petitioner was nominal and, therefore, the Labour Court had rightly denied giving him 100% back wages. Reference was also made to the fact that the workman had never gone to the Employment Exchange and offer had been made during the pendency of the reference before the Labour Court that management was willing to take him back but he refused for the same.