IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 16.03.2026 Onkar Singh …Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, U.T. Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the impugned award dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure P-1), as passed by learned Industrial Tribunal concerned (respondent No.1), the petitioner/workman, was granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages.

2. The petitioner/workman, challenged the legality of the award (supra), to the extent of not granting 100% back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that services of the petitioner/workman was erroneously terminated, and there is a positive finding in this regard that there is non-compliance of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the ID Act’). He further submits that the petitioner/workman, was not gainfully employed during his termination period till his reinstatement, and therefore, he is entitled for 100% back wages.

3. Further, reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, 2013 (10) SCC 324, and submitted that the petitioner/workman, is entitled for 100% back wages.

4. Per contra learned counsel for the State, has strongly opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner/workman. He apprises this Court that the State, has already complied with the award, as the petitioner/workman, was reinstated into the service, and he joined on 31.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner/workman, absented himself w.e.f. 04.05.2020, and he joined back on 29.10.2020 for a short period, and thereafter, he never joined the services again. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner/workman was joining the duty, as per his own whims and fancies.

5. Learned counsel for the State, while joining the issue on merits, submits that the petitioner/workman was working on the post of Junior Programmer, w.e.f. 11.09.2001 and continued upto 08.04.2006. He submitted that the petitioner/workman was appointed on a contractual basis, and his contract was renewed from time to time, as per requirement of Junior Programmer, in Chandigarh Depot, and he was lastly appointed on contractual basis, vide order dated 02.03.2006, for the period from 05.12.2005 to

03.03.2006, on a consolidated wages @ Rs.3,000/- per month.

6. While referring to terms and conditions of contractual appointment, it is submitted that services of the workman can be terminated without prior notice, or assigning any reason. He also submits that it is the petitioner/workman, who himself abandoned the job, and never joined the duty back. Finally, he submits that considering the nature of the job, and the manner in which, the petitioner remained absented, coupled with the other relevant factors, the petitioner/workman, was rightly granted 30% back wages. He apprises this Court that the petitioner/workman, was interested only in getting the financial benefits, and never wanted to serve the respondent/Management.

7. This Court has considered the submissions, as made by learned counsels for the parties concerned.

8. Before proceeding further, let us have a glimpse upon some of the guiding legal principles, as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mitthu Singh’, 2006 (7) SCC 180, has held that there cannot be any thumb rule in every case, where order of reinstatement is passed that the employee is entitled to full back wages:-

“10. In General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh,2005 (3) SCT 559: 2005 (5) SCC 591, this Court held that there is no rule of thumb that in each and every case, where a finding is recorded by Court or Tribunal