- (1.) Present writ petition has been preferred by Government of Punjab through the Secretary, Irrigation Department (hereinafter referred to as, 'the management') against Vinod Kumar respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the workman'). The State of Punjab has assailed the order dated 9th May, 2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, whereby under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), he has held that the workman is entitled to balance amount of back wages amounting to Rs. 2,17,381/- within a period of three months from the date of pronouncement of the order, failing which, the workman has been further held entitled to claim the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum till actual payment of the amount is made.
(2.) It is an admitted fact that the workman, whose services were terminated, was ordered to be reinstated with 50 percent back wages, vide award (Annexure P-2) dated 6th November, 1997. The award (Annexure P-2) has attained finality between the parties and has been affirmed by the higher courts.
(3.) The workman Vinod Kumar respondent No. 1 was appointed as Silt Observer by the management on 16th March, 1977. His services were terminated on 15th February, 1983. This fact has been gathered from the award (Annexure P-2). The management had reinstated the applicant on 13th June, 2001 on the direction of this Court in CM No. 706 of 2000 in Civil Writ Petition No. 18329 of 1990. Applicant was paid half wages from 05.07.1982 to 26.07.1998 and full wages from 27.07.1998 to 13.06.2001. By filing the application under Section 33C (2) of the Act, the workman demanded difference of amount of back wages as a result of increments, Dearness Allowance admissible to him during the period of July 1982 to 31.05.2001 and also House Rent Allowance. This amount was being denied to the applicant on the ground that he had not served the Department from 05.07.1982 to 31.05.2001. After noticing the contention of the parties, Labour Court observed as under : "13. The stance of the respondent department is untenable as with the grant of relief of back wages on reinstatement of an employee, increments, DA and revision in pay scale follows in the natural course. The back wages cannot be computed in case of such a workman at the rate of salary drawn by him on the date of his termination. For this view I take support from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Piara Lal v. Governor, 2001 1 SCT 655. In Sadhu Ram v. State of Punjab, 2000 4 SCT 190 position has been made further clear by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana by observing that reinstatement of an employee would vest in him the right of continuity of service and right to all benefits as if his services had never been terminated. It was also held that such an employee is notionally entitled to increments which fell due to him during the period of his absence from service on account of his dismissal. Similar view were taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhara Pradesh in P.Sri Nivas v. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Warangal. A perusal of chart Ex. A6 would show that workman has taken note of the amount of increments and HRA to arrive at the amount claimed by him as a difference of less amount paid to him by the respondent department in respect of arrears of back wages from 5.7.82 to 31.5.2001. No fault has been found by the respondent department in respect of this chart either in written statement or in the statement made by way of affidavit Ex.R1 through Sh. Amarjit Singh examined as RW1. In so far as the element of HRA is concerned the same has been claimed as per Ex.AX proved by AW 2 Amarjit Singh Junior Assistant examined by the applicant in additional evidence. This chart depicts entitlement of workcharged employee even to house rent. Respondent department has not brought or proved on record any material in support of the fact that no house rent was admissible to the applicant being a workcharged employee." It has been urged before us by the counsel for the State that since the workman, after the award was pronounced on 6th November, 1997, had not joined service till 31.05.2001, he is not entitled to the benefit of increments, Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance, on the ground that the workman had not actually worked. We are unable to accept this contention. Once termination of workman was held to be bad and he was ordered to reinstated with continuity of service and back wages, then the benefits which have to accrue to him as part of service, cannot be denied to him. Therefore, Labour Court has rightly held the workman to be entitled to the benefits claimed by him. Hence, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.;