RANJIT SINGH Vs. THE LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the award of the Labour Court dated 22.5.92 (Annexure P -1) has been challenged. At the very outset, it is noticed that the workman -petitioner was working as Chowkidar when his services were illegally terminated. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court which passed award dated 22.05.1992 holding him entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. The ground taken by the Labour Court for denial of back wages was that the petitioner was assisting his father in cultivation. The petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 7.5.1993 and till 10.9.93 no reply was filed by the respondents when the case was ultimately admitted. A period of almost 20 years has elapsed.

(2.) LEARNED DAG has stated that she has no instructions in the matter and no one from the department has approached her as yet.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that the reason which weighed with the Labour Court for disallowing back wages is not sustainable in law since a dismissed employee cannot be expected to starve to death while waiting for reinstatement. In the present case also as per learned counsel the workman has only assisted his father in cultivation and this could not be a ground for completely disallowing back wages. In the circumstances I find that the denial of back wages totally is not justified.