Daleep Singh vs Guru Nanak Dev University Amritsar & ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 13480 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Daleep Singh vs Guru Nanak Dev University Amritsar & ... on 2 August, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098917




CWP-4117-2000 (O&M)               1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

208                                      CWP-4117-2000 (O&M)
                                         Date of Decision : 02.08.2024


DALEEP SINGH                                         .... PETITIONER

                          V/S

GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR & ANOTHER

                                                     .... RESPONDENTS

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate for
            Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.M.K.Dogra, Advocate
            for the respondent-University.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking modification of award

dated 06.04.1998 to the extent he has been awarded back wages @ 25%.

2. The petitioner was engaged by respondent-University as

Beldar w.e.f. 15.12.1971. He was terminated in November' 1990. He

served demand notice upon respondents on 15.10.1991. On his request,

the matter was referred to Labour Court which vide award dated

06.04.1998 ordered to reinstate him with continuity of service. With

respect to back wages, the Labour Court formed an opinion that workman

is entitled to 25% of back wages from the date of demand notice.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098917

3. The petitioner is claiming that he should be awarded 100%

of back wages.

4. Concededly, the petitioner was reinstated and he has

completed his term of service. The Labour Court has granted him 25% of

back wages considering the fact that he was doing work as Mason. The

Tribunal has considered the fact that it is not believable that a workman

remained out of job or that he was not gainfully employed 1990 onwards.

For the purpose of survival, he must have worked.

5. Considering the findings of Labour Court, judgment of

Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences

and another vs. Bikartan Das and others 2023 SCC Online SC 996 and

the fact that the petitioner was reinstated and the management accepted

the order of reinstatement, this Court does not find any reason to

interfere.

6. Dismissed.

                                            (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                 JUDGE
02.08.2024
anju


             Whether speaking/reasoned         : Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                : Yes/No




                                2 of 2