214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8024-2001 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 19.02.2026 JAIBIR SINGH .....Petitioner VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK, AND ANOTHER.

.....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate, (through V.C.)

with Mr. Dharam Pal Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana for respondent no.1.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

*****

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the workman has approached this Court seeking full back wages by modifying the Award dated 13.08.1998, wherethrough the reference was partially answered against him, while granting the relief of reinstatement, but with only 25% back wages.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman submits that while denying the relief of 100% back wages to the petitioner-workman, learned Tribunal, had placed reliance upon “M.K.Kohli vs. Alfadeal Chemicals, Faridabad” 1997-2(116) PLR 81, and presumed that the petitioner-workman must have been gainfully employed during the interregnum period for his survival.

3. He further submits that the aforesaid reasoning given by the learned Tribunal concerned, for grant of only 25% of the back wages, is against the settled legal preposition in ‘Deepali Gundu Surwase versus Kranti Junior Adhyapak and others’ [2013 (10) SCC 324] wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court has already laid down the parameters for providing back wages and therefore, the workman in the present case is entitled for 100% back wages. However, no such exercise was done in the light of the said judgment. Therefore, on this aspect also, the impugned Award requires interference.

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of respondent no.2-management, and submits that the petitioner-workman, has only worked for one year, when his services were terminated, and he had not pleaded clearly before the learned Tribunal concerned, that he remain unemployed during the interregnum period.

5. This Court has considered the submission, as made by both the parties concerned, and has perused the impugned Award.

6. Succinctly stated, the petitioner-workman submitted a claim statement before the respondent authorities, which was subsequently, referred under the provisions of Section 10(1)(c) the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to decide the legality of the of respondent no.2-management, with regard to termination of services of the petitioner-workman. In the claim statement the petitioner-workman stated that he was appointed as Chawkidar/Helper, on 01.05.1992, under respondent no.2-management. On 07.03.1993, when he reported for his duties, he was not allowed to join, and his services were terminated without giving notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. Therefore, respondent no.2-management has violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7. Vide impugned Award the learned Tribunal concerned, concluded that the petitioner-workman had worked for 240 days and without making compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the act of termination of his services were found to be illegal and he was ordered to be reinstated, however, with only 25% back wages.

8. The issue involved in the instant writ petition, is of adequacy of the back wages, as awarded to the petitioner by the learned Tribunal concerned.

9. Before proceeding further to examine the aforesaid issue, it would be expedient to understand the concept of back wages, and reference to various judicial precedents on the said issue would be inevitable. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its celebrated judgment in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 75, has held that, if the workmen were al