Maghar Singh vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6598 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maghar Singh vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 22 March, 2024

CWP-7971-1998 1 2024:PHHC:042073

203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-7971-1998
DECIDED ON: 22.03.2024
MAGHAR SINGH -- aes PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, LUDHIANA AND
OTHERS nee RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: None for the petitioner.

Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)

1. As per office report, counsel for the parties i.e. Mr. MLS. Bedi, Advocate, and Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, have already been informed through e-mail.

2. Petitioner -- Maghar Singh (workman) has assailed the award dated 18.09.1997 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No.1 -- learned Labour Court, Ludhiana, vide which reference No.1901 of 1991, under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short, 'ID Act'), has been answered in favour of the workman.

3. While holding his entitlement of reinstatement, learned Labour Court has held that the order of termination does not commensurate to the offence of delinquency committed by the workman. Resultantly, workman was held to be entitled for reinstatement along with

50% back wages.

authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-7971-1998 2 2024:PHHC:042073

4. Dissatisfied with the award, the workman has filed the present writ petition for seeking modification of the award for grant of

5. Learned Labour Court has exercised its judicial discretion wherein while considering the circumstances, learned Labour Court realized that the workman must be earning to some extent during the period of his absence from the duty. Therefore, instead of granting full back wages, same has been restricted to 50%. In addition to this, he has been awarded one month's average wage for every year of completed service, w.e.f. 17.03.1991 till 31.08.1998, i.e. the date of superannuation.

6. Moreover, there is no definite provision of law making it binding for the Court to award 100% back wages that too, beyond any justification.

7. Therefore, taking note of the reasons assigned, this Court does not deem it appropriate to cause any kind of interference in the

findings recorded by learned Labour Court.

8. Accordingly, present writ petition stands dismissed.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 22.03.2024 JUDGE Lavisha

Whether speaking/reasoned _--_ Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court,