V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) The Labour Court, Ludhiana, vide award dated 14th October, 1981 invalidated the order of retrenchment of the petitioner-workman but denied him the back wages on the sole ground that he did not state that as to what efforts he made to secure employment and that he could not live without employment. It is also stated that the workman was employed only as a work-charge employee. The aforesaid grounds are wholly unjustified to deny the back wages to a workman in whose case the order of retrenchment had been held to be illegal or void. The Full Bench of this Court in Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, 1979 Punjab Law Reporter 720 , following the dictum of the Supreme Court in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of the Hindustan Works Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1979 Supreme Court 75 held that "ordinarily a workman whose service has been illegal terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during enforced idleness. This is the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating the departure."
(2.) The denial of back wages on the ground stated above runs counter to the dictum of the Full Bench of this Court and that being so the present petition has to be allowed. Award of the Labour Court, Ludhiana, dated 14th October, 1981, is modified to say that the workman-petitioner would be entitled to full back wages. This petition is allowed with costs. Petition allowed.;