IMPORTANT POINT
Conduct of workman would play an important role as regard direction upon employer to pay back wages.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-These two appeals arising out of a common judgment and order dated 7.12.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 8212 of 1999 involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Jagir Singh, the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1167 of 2002 will be hereinafter referred to as the workman ; whereas the State of Punjab, Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1168 of 2002, will be hereinafter referred to as the State .

FACTS :

3. The workman herein joined the service in the Punjab Roadways, Taran Taran, in the year 1965 as a driver. It is not in dispute that he absented himself from duty from 2.5.1979 to 3.8.1979. The workman did not apply for any grant of leave. He was asked to report for duty by a registered letter dated 22.6.1979 but despite the same he did not comply with said request. As regard his absence from duty, a notice was published in the newspapers but despite the same he did not join his duties within the time specified therein. The State, therefore, on the ground his being absent from duty, terminated his services with effect from 3.8.1979. Questioning the legality of the said order, a purported demand was raised by the workman to reinstate him in service by a letter dated 5.3.1981. An industrial dispute was raised in relation whereto, conciliation proceedings were held. Consequent upon failure of the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement therein, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the State purported to be in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by a notification dated 25.8.1993 on the following:

"Whether termination of the services of the workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled?"

4. The said reference was answered in favour of the workman and against the State by an award dated 2.5.1997. In terms of the award, the State was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity in service and full back-wages stating:

"In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity in service and since the workman has stated that he had remained unemployed throughout, and there being no evidence contradicting above statement by management in this regard, workman shall be entitled to full back-wages from the date of demand notice and all allied benefits. The reference is answered as such. No order as to costs. The workman is directed to report for duty within 30 days of the publication of the award."

5. The State thereafter filed a writ petition questioning the said award before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 2.6.1999. The High Court by reason of its impugned judgment dated 7.12.2000 allowed the writ petition in part to the limited extent that instead and place of full back-wages, the workman was held to be entitled to 60% of the back-wages, while upholding the direction for reinstatement of the workman, stating:

"So far as back wages are concerned, the Labour Court awarded full back wages from the date of demand notice. However, it can be seen that the demand notice was issued on 5.3.1981. Reference was made on 25.8.1993 and the impugned order is dated 2.5.1997. In view of this position, we restrict back wages to 60% from the date of demand notice. The writ petition deserves to be allowed to this extent. In the light of above discussion, this writ petition is partly allowed. The back wages are restricted to 60% only from the date of demand notice. Rest of the prayer made in the writ petition is declined."

6. Aggrieved, both the State and the workman have filed these appeals upon obtaining special leave.

7. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, would submit that keeping in view the fact that the workman failed and/or neglected to join his duties despite rece