- (1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the denial of back wages by the Labour Court in the award dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as a Driver on 16.2.1989 in the Haryana Roadways. While he was on duty on 1.9.1993, the bus which he was driving met with accident resulting in filing of FIR. The petitioner was convicted on 29.7.2002 sentencing him for rigorous imprisonment for four months. On 8.7.2004, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal appeal.
(2.) Insofar as service condition of the petitioner is concerned, he was dismissed from service on 3.8.1998 without holding an inquiry. In other words with reference to filing of FIR and pendency of the criminal proceedings, petitioner has been dismissed from service. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred appeal and revision, both were rejected. On 7.8.2008, Labour Court set aside the order of termination/dismissal and directed for petitioner's reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. Denial of back wages by the Labour Court is on the ground that the "he is a Driver and would have worked somewhere and have not remained idle".
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted reasoning assigned for the denial of back wages is on the presumption of the Labour Court. In the absence of any documentary and oral evidence, the petitioner cannot be denied back wages. No material has been produced by the respondent-Haryana Roadways for denial of back wages. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from the cross-examination of the petitioner wherein he has specifically taken the stand that he is not working anywhere. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that Labour Court has rightly rejected the back wages on the ground that the petitioner would have worked somewhere as a Driver for his livelihood. It was further contended by the second respondent counsel that there is delay of six years in raising the dispute. The demand notice was issued on 23.11.2005 whereas his order of dismissal is dated 3.8.1998. Learned counsel for the second respondent cited decision of this Court as well as Supreme Court that if there is a delay in claim, such persons are not entitled for back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited decision of this Court in CWP No. 15160 of 2005 (Satish Kumar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another) decided on 5.8.2013 to claim back wages.;