Rajinder Parshad vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Bathinda And Ors

208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH


LPA-1431-2018 (O&M)

Reserved on :30.10.2026
Pronounced on : 12.11.2026
Uploaded on : 12.11.2026


RAJINDER PARSHAD
...Appellant

Versus

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BATHINDA
AND OTHERS

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR

Present : Mr. Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate
for the appellant.

Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.

RAJESH GAUR, J.
1. The present appeal, filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent,
is directed against the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the learned Single
Judge, whereby the writ petition bearing CWP-17954-2018 , filed by the
appellant challenging the order dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by
the Labour Court, Bathinda, was dismissed.
GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.12 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1431-2018 (O&M) -2-


2. The controversy in the present appeal is confined to the
quantum of back wages. The order of reinstatement with continuity
of service is no longer under challenge. The relevant facts may briefly be
noticed as under :
2.1 The appellant was appointed as a Store Keeper on 08.08.1973
and joined the establishment at Raman Mandi on 12.01.1983. His services
were terminated vide order dated 08.02.1984 with effect from 24.08.1983.
The appellant challenged the order of termination and upon reference of the
industrial dispute, the Labour Court, vide award dated 21.11.2000
(Annexure P-5), set aside the order of termination and directed his
reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.
3. Aggrieved thereby the denial of back wages, the appellant
approached this Court by filing CWP No. 14175 of 2003 . Vide order dated
17.04.2017 (Annexure P-6), matter was remanded to the Labour Court for
reconsideration of that issue alone, on the basis of the evidence already
available on record. The finding regarding reinstatement and continuity of
service was expressly left undisturbed. On remand, the Labour Court, vide
award dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure P-7), granted 25% of back wages. The
appellant again invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking full back
wages but the learned Single Judge declined to interfere. Hence, the present
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that once the order
of termination has been held illegal and reinstatement with continuity of
services has been ordered, the appellant ought to have been granted full back
GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.12 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1431-2018 (O&M) -3-

wages. It is submitted that the appellant had specifically asserted that he
remained unemployed despite making efforts to secure employment and
that the management had failed to establish that he was gainfully employed
during the intervening period. Reliance has also been placed upon
the medical condition of the appellant and the judicial pronouncements
recognizing back wages as an appropriate consequence of wrongful
termination.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and
3, while opposing the appeal, submits that the appellant is not entitled to
claim full back wages as a matter of right merely because the order of
termination was set aside and reinstatement with continuity of service was
directed. It is contended that the appellant had remained absent from duty
without obtaining proper permission and that the management had issued
notices, including through publication, calling upon him to resume duty. It is
further submitted that the Labour Court, while reconsidering the matter in
terms of the order of remand, duly examined the material available on record
and after taking into consideration the conduct of the appellant as well as
other attending circumstances, granted 25% of the back wages. The learned
counsel accordingly submits that the award passed by the Labour Court, as
affirmed by the learned Single Judge, does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity warranting interference in the present appeal.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have examined the material available on record. The
limited question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is
whether the award of 25% back wages, as affirmed by learned Single Judge,
GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.12 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1431-2018 (O&M) -4-

suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference in the present
intra-court appeal.
7. It is well-settled that reinstatement does not, in every case and
as an invariable rule, carry an automatic entitlement to full back wages. The
relief of back wages depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case,
including the nature of termination, the conduct of the workman, the period
for which he remained out of service, the material concerning gainful
employment and other circumstances bearing upon the equities between the
parties. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and another, 2007(2) SCC
433 and U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another v. Uday
Narain Pandey 2006(1) SCC 479 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that
the question of back wages requires a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion
and cannot be decided mechanically merely because the order of termination
has been found to be illegal.
7.1 Equally, in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, 2013(10) SCC 324 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the significance of restitution where the
termination of service is found to be illegal. That principle, however, does
not dispense with examination of particular facts. The Labour Court was,
therefore, required to analyse the evidence available on record and determine
the appropriate monetary relief, rather than treating the setting aside of
termination, by itself, as conclusive of the appellant’s entitlement to full
back wages.

GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.12 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1431-2018 (O&M) -5-

8. In the present case, the Labour Court took note of the
circumstances in which the appellant had remained away from duty. The
management had relied upon notices, including publication, requiring him
to report for duty as well as his absence without permission. The appellant
disputed the effect of the aforesaid circumstances and asserted that he had
applied for leave. These aspects were considered by the Labour Court
while adjudicating the claim for back wages. The illegality of the order of
termination was not reopened as the same had already attained finality. The
Labour Court, nevertheless, considered the conduct of the appellant while
determining the separate issue of monetary relief.
8.1 The Labour Court also considered the appellant's claim that he
was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. It did not reject
his claim for back wages altogether. Instead, after considering the competing
circumstances and the material available on record, it awarded 25% back
wages. Thus, the relief granted by the Labour Court reflects an assessment
of the record rather than an assumption that the appellant was disentitled to
back wages merely because he had remained absent from duty.
9. The learned Single Judge also noticed the aforesaid
considerations and found no ground to substitute a different assessment. The
contention that the management had not established gainful employment of
the appellant, even if accepted for the sake of argument, would not, by itself,
necessarily compel an award of 100% back wages, irrespective of the other
relevant circumstances. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for
the appellant do not lay down any inflexible proposition that full back wages
GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.12 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1431-2018 (O&M) -6-

must follow in every case of reinstatement. The award of back wages is a
matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised on settled legal principles and
on the basis of the evidence and circumstances of each case. It is also
material that the earlier order of remand was confined to the issue of back
wages and did not permit the parties to adduce further evidence. The Labour
Court, accordingly, determined the said issue on the basis of the existing
record. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate that any material
circumstance was excluded from consideration or that the conclusion arrived
at by the Labour Court, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge, is perverse
or contrary to any binding rule of law. Merely because a different view
regarding the percentage of back wages may also be possible, the same
would not, by itself, furnish sufficient ground for appellate interference with
a reasoned determination of the matter.
10. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the learned Single Judge
committed any error in declining to interfere with the award dated
11.08.2017 (Annexure P-7). The grant of 25% back wages, while
maintaining the order of reinstatement with continuity of service, cannot, in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, be characterized as arbitrary
or legally unsustainable. Thus, no case for enhancement of back wages is
made out.
11. Consequently, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.
Order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge and the award
dated 11.08.2017, to the extent under challenge, are affirmed. There shall be
no order as to costs.

GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.12 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-1431-2018 (O&M) -7-


12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.


[SUVIR SEHGAL] [RAJESH GAUR]
JUDGE JUDGE

November 12, 2026
gurpreet

Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

GURPREET KAUR
2026.11.12 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document