ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court I, Meerut in adjudication Case No. 205 of 1993 dated 5 -9 -1997, Annexure -5 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the State Government vide its order dated 14 -12 -1993 have referred the following dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court. .........[vernacular ommited text]........... After affording opportunity to the respective parties i.e., employer and workman concerned, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman are not proved and he has been punished in excessive as compare to the charges. The Labour Court further found that the ends of justice will meet if the employee punished with that no wages to be paid during the period of suspension except what has already been paid as subsistence allowance and further that no back wages till the date of award. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court has directed the reinstatement without back wages except what has already been paid as subsistence allowance. It is this part of the award, which is being challenged by the petitioner -workman by means of this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri Siddharth, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of this writ petition and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents. The argument advanced by Sri Siddharth is that since the Labour Court once comes to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman were not found proved and that he has been punished in excessive as compare to the charges, the Labour Court has erred in holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the back wages till the date of award. Sri Siddharth further submitted that in view of the discussion under the award, the aforesaid finding denying the workman's wages before the date of award is perverse.;