S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 5244 of 2000 and Civil Writ Petition No. 16937 of 2000. Civil Writ Petition No. 5244 of 2000 has been filed by the Management under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India with the prayer for quashing of the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur on 17.8.1999 published on 29.9.1999. Civil Writ Petition No. 16973 of 2000 is filed by the workman seeking modification of the award, claiming full back wages instead of the lump sum Rs. 8000/ - awarded by the Labour Court. The workman was appointed as Kamdar of the Management on 2.1.1975 in the semi -skilled scale during the crushing season. He worked for a very shot period of time. Again he joined on 1.4.1988 as temporary Clerk and worked for the crushing season. Thereafter, working in the season 1990 -91, he was caught red handed while trying to make false purchi of San -tokh Singh son of Sh. Kashmir Singh, resident of village Ghuman Kalan. Without observing the rules of natural justice or holding any domestic enquiry, his services were terminated. On 11.2.1991, the workman sought a reference and the State of Punjab on 11.11.1991 referred the industrial dispute to Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(2.) AFTER completion of the pleadings, the Labour Court framed the issue as to whether the termination of the services of workman is justified and in order. This issue has been decided against the Management and in favour of the workman. It has been held that the since the termination of services of the workman is by way of the punishment without any Domestic Enquiry and in breach of the rules of natural justice, the same cannot be upheld. Mr. Sharma does not seriously contest the findings of the Labour Court on the issue of termination. He, however, submits that the workman could only have been put back to the same position as he was enjoying before the termination of his services. He, therefore, submits that the workman could not have been granted back wages in the amount of Rs. 8000/ -which was has been granted by the Award. Mr. Mahajan, however, has vehemently argued that the workman would have been entitled to continue to work in the subsequent season but for the termination order. The award of Rs. 8000/ - in lieu of the back wages is in fact on the lesser side. Learned counsel has submitted that the workman would have been entitled to same wages as have been given to the other seasonal employees. Therefore, on reinstatement he was entitled to full back wages.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the Award does not require any interference. A perusal of the Award clearly shows that the workman has been directed to be reinstated in the same capacity as employed in every crushing season. I am of the considered opinion what no further relief could have been granted to the workman. Similarly, the management can not be heard to say that the workman was not entitled to the payment of Rs. 8000/ -. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.;