Shri Manjeet Singh vs The Presiding Officer And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 3516 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      W.P.(C.) No. 4845/1999

%                  Date of Decision: 02nd September, 2009


# SHRI MANJEET SINGH
                                                         ..... PETITIONER

!                  Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.

                                VERSUS

$ THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.
                                                      .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar for respondent No. 2.

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The workman in this writ petition seeks to challenge an industrial

award dated 19.02.1999 passed by the Industrial Adjudicator in ID No.

224/1995 directing his reinstatement without back wages. The grievance

of the petitioner in this writ petition is only against non-grant of back

wages for the period between the date of termination and the date of the

award.

2 Vide award impugned in the present writ petition, the petitioner

was ordered to be reinstated in service of respondent No. 2 i.e. Delhi Jal

Board. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner submits on instructions from his client that the petitioner has

been reinstated by respondent No. 2 in terms of directions contained in

the impugned award of the Industrial Adjudicator. The petitioner was

denied back wages for the period intervening between the date of his

termination and the date of impugned award for cogent reasons

contained in the said award. The relevant portion of the impugned award

on this aspect is extracted below:-

"Normally when the termination found to be unjustified the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages. But in the instant case the memo dated 25.08.1993 reveals that during personal hearing the workman stated that he was doing labour work in village and was earning Rs.30/- per day. So, it will not be proper to award back wages to him. Moreover, the workman is succeeding on technical ground only because the department could not prove its charges due to loss of file and fire. This alone is sufficient to deny back wages to him. Hence, I find that workman is entitled to reinstatement but without back wages."

3 Mr. Anuj Aggarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajinder

Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1984 SC 1805 has

contended that Rs.30/- per day earned by the petitioner during the period

intervening between the date of his termination till he was reinstated

cannot be treated as gainful employment to deny him the benefits of

back wages. This argument is of no legal consequence for the reasons for

denying back wages given in the impugned award. The Industrial

Adjudicator has noted in the impugned award that the workman has been

ordered to be reinstated in service because of technical ground as the

department could not prove its charges due to loss of file and fire. This is

an important input which was taken into account by the Industrial

Adjudicator while denying back wages to the petitioner. In the opinion of

this Court, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajinder Kumar Kindra's

case (Supra) is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the

present case.

4 In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any

perversity or illegality in the impugned award that may call for an

interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary

writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This writ petition

therefore fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their

own costs.

SEPTEMBER 02, 2009                             S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'a'