IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : October 28, 2025 GURJANT SINGH -PETITIONER V/S THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms./Mrs. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate and Mr. Ratik Chatrath Kapur, Advocate for the respondents.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 23.09.2025, Mr. Sunil Mehta, Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, has appeared personally before this Court.

2. It is pertinent to record that, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the erstwhile Municipal Committee, Bathinda has been upgraded to Municipal Corporation, Bathinda.

3. The present writ petition challenges the award dated 12.06.2000 passed by the respondent No.1, but only to the extent it denies the petitioner/workman the benefit of back wages.

4. The facts qua which there is no wrangle between the contesting litigants are that the workman was appointed as a Beldar with the Municipal Committee, Bathinda, on 03.01.1993, and his services were terminated on 19.05.1994. Aggrieved by his termination, the workman served a demand notice dated 30.05.1994 upon the management, followed by the filing of a statement of claim dated 06.10.1995. The industrial dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”). The Labour Court, by the impugned award, answered the reference in favour of the workman and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages. The workman was further directed to report for duty to the management within thirty days from the publication of the award.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Labour Court found violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, the workman was entitled to full back wages. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324.

6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents, while adverting to the findings recorded by the Labour Court in denying back wages, submits that the workman remained silent regarding the nature and income of his father’s employment and further failed to plead or establish that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period.

7. It is submitted that before adjudicating the issue of entitlement of back wages, certain crucial aspects need to be taken into consideration, such as, manner and method of selection, nature of appointment, i.e. whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent, length of service etc. Not just that, the issue in question is also required to be evaluated on the anvil of principles of equity, justice and good conscience. In this regard, reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mitthu Singh, 2006 (7) SCC 180, wherein, it was 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 that the order of termination of service was illegal that an employee is entitled to full back wages. A host of factors must be taken into account.

The Court stated:

"There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a findings that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of actors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the va