GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB ROADWAYS, MUKTSAR Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 Baldev Singh was initially employed as Helper in Punjab Roadways, Muktsar w.e.f. Jan., 1, 1984 to Jan. 25, 1984. This appointment was extended from time to time with breaks in service. His last appointment was for the period March 1, 1986 to March 18, 1986. Services of Baldev Singh were terminated w.e.f. March 18, 1986. Aggrieved by the order of termination, Baldev Singh (hereinafter to be referred as workman) served a demand notice on Oct. 18, 1989. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') referred the dispute between the workman and the Punjab Roadways, Muktsar for adjudication, whether or not the termination of services of the workman is justified and in order and in case it is not, to what relief he is entitled. The Labour Court by its award dated Aug. 20, 1990 answered the reference in favour of the workman after holding that the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Act have not been complied with. The workman was consequently ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. It was also ordered that the workman shall report for duty after 30 days of publication of the award. Aggrieved, by the award of the Labour Court, the Punjab Roadways, Mukhtsar and Director, State Transport, Punjab have filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner could not raise any serious challenge to the finding of the Labour Court that the workman was entitled to reinstatement as the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Act had been complied with. Learned counsel, however, strenuously contended that the Labour Court gravel erred in law in awarding full back wages, to the workman. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court completely over-looked the fact that the workman took no steps to challenge the order of termination for a period of over three years, his services having been terminated on March 18, 1986 and the demand noticed for the first time having been served on Oct. 19, 1989. Thus, according to the counsel, the workman was not entitled to back wages for this period.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The workman after termination of his services on March 18, 1986, served demand notice on Oct. 18, 1989. He was thus remiss in claiming the relief from the Labour Court. No justifiable explanation has come on the record which may entitle the workman for grant of back wages for this period. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman could not show any law which may justify the grant of back wages to the workman in the circumstances noticed above.