DIRECTOR TRANSPORT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure P-13), whereby reference has been decided in favour of the respondent No. 2-workman and the Labour Court has held that workman is entitled for reinstatement with consequential benefits and full backwages. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that Labour Court has committed illegality and perversity in granting the backwages, much less, relief of consequential benefits.

(2.) In order to lend support to the aforementioned plea, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the demand notice, whereby the workman has not averred or pleaded that he was not gainfully employed for the period he remained out of service.

(3.) I have gone through the demand notice. It is true that there is no averment, much less, any pleading to that fact and in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) & others, 2013 10 SCC 324, whereby, it has been held that where workman has categorically not pleaded and averred that he was not gainfully employed for the period he remained out of service, he is not entitled to back wages.