IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 06.03.2026 The Jind Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. ….Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1. Through the instant writ petition, as cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an award dated 08.01.2001 (Annexure P-4) is assailed, vide which, the reference was answered in favour of the respondent-workman, and he was held entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice, i.e. 05.07.1993.

2. Vide order dated 19.01.2026, this Court had directed the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management to have apt instructions about the status of the respondent-workman, and also, if the compliance of Section 17- of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was made or not?

3. In response thereto, on 12.02.2026, an affidavit of Managing Director of the petitioner-Cooperative Sugar Mills, was filed delineating that the respondent-workman was reinstated on 19.04.2001, and he is still working with the petitioner-Management, as a permanent employee, therefore, the obligation to make compliance of Section 17-B of the Act is discharged.

4. The abovesaid position is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent-workman, being a matter of record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Management fairly submits that in view of the supervening event, the issue of reinstatement has become redundant. Therefore, the only issue, which requires consideration by this Court, is with regard to the relief of full back wages, as granted by the learned Industrial Tribunal. In this regard, he submits that no reason, whatsoever, was assigned by the learned Industrial Tribunal to grant full back wages to the respondent-workman. Further, he submits that respondent-workman was not inducted through any selection process. So much so, it has never been the case of the respondent-workman that the Management, at any stage, adopted any unfair labour practice. Thus, the benefit of full back wages is predicated only upon mechanical approach.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- workman, submits that no enquiry was conducted, and therefore, order of termination was rightly held to be illegal. Further, the respondent- workman was not gainfully employed, during his termination period. In this view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be upheld.

7. Before embarking upon the issue, as indicated above, it would be expedient to comprehend the concept of back wages, as culled out in various pronouncements on the subject. 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 always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back wages, which were legitimately due to them. The relevant observations are extracted hereinbelow:-

“9. It is no more open to debate that in the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that the termination of service is bad and the workman continues to be in service. The spectre of common law doctrine that contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced or the doctrine of mitigation of damages does not haunt in this branch of law. The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to the work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived workman of his earnings.