The Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, P.W.D., B and R, Sonepat vs Hari Ram

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 2.9.1999, (Annexure P/4) vide which respondent No. 1-Workman was reinstated in service with full back wages.

The workman was appointed in the year 1983 as Beldar and continued upto 31.1.1993. The workman contended that he was retrenched while the case of the petitioner is that he left the job himself. This is the point, which was required to be determined by the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the workman had not left the job and Ke was retrenched.

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the observations made in the award of the Labour Court in which the workman''s witness WW-1 had stated that the workman was appointed on daily wages but he was not given any appointment letter and he left the job himself He also contended that MW-1 Sewa Ram Atri supported the say of the petitioner. However, one thing has to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence that MW-1 is also in the service of the petitioner. Moreover, if there is circumstance to show that the admission of the witness was not correct, the Labour Court cannot be faulted for its observation. The fact is that the workman worked from January 1983 to 31.1.1993 i.e. for a period of 10 years. He had also filed a writ petition for regularisation of his services, in which it was ordered that it should be taken up after the decision of Piara Singh''s case. When this is the position, there is no reason shown as to why he left the job. There is no resignation letter alleged to be given by the workman. The circumstances, therefore, overwhelm the admission made by the workman''s witness. We find no infirmity with the finding of the Labour Court that his services were terminated and he had not left the job.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Labour Court had erred in awarding full back wages, when the award was passed after a long time. However, in the present case, the petitioner had worked for 10 years. Moreover, it is not shown that during the period of forced unemployment, the workman was gainfully employed. We are guided by the observations of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hart Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court reported as ILR 1979 720.

This writ petition is without merit and is therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed .