JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)- Petitioner-workman has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Bathinda dated 20.2.1986, whereby he has been denied the back wages.
(2.)In brief, the facts of the case are that a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 relating to a dispute between the petitioner-workman and respondent No. 2-Society was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bhatinda. The point in the reference was Whether termination of services of Hari Ram workman is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled ?
The Labour Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the reference is bad in law and is not maintainable as alleged in the preliminary objections of the written statement ? 2. Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justifiable at law and in order ? 3. Relief.
Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the petitioner-workman. The Labour Court reached a conclusion that the order of termination of services of the workman was not justified. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner-workman with continuity of service but without back wages. Aggrieved against the relief of denying the back wages, the petitioner-workman has filed the present writ petition.
(3.)The sole argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Labour Court has not assigned any reasons for denying the back wages. It was urged by the counsel for the workman that when the Court comes to a conclusion that termination of workman's services is not justified and there is no evidence to show that the workman was gainfully employed during the period he remained out of service, back wages for the said period cannot be denied.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.