Tarsem Singh (Petitioner) v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundur, And Another (S).

J.M Tandon, J.:— Tarsem Singh petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the Hoshiarpur Express Transport Company Limited, respondent. His services were terminated. He raised an industrial dispute and the following reference was made to the Labour Court Jullundur for adjudication.

“Whether the termination of services of Tarsem Singh, workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled?

2. The Labour Court vide Award dated June 23, 1976 (P 5) held that the termination of the services of the petitioner was neither justified nor in order. He was consequently directed to be reinstated with continuity of service.

3. He was not allowed back wages on the ground that in his statement recorded by the Labour Court, he made no claim about the same. It is against this Award that the present Writ is directed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner in his claim dated March 26,-1974 (P 1) did claim his re-instatement with full back wages. In His statement before the Labour Court; he again said that he remained unemployed during the-period his services remained terminated, because he could not get any other job. In this situation the Labour Court erred in not allowing back-wages to the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail. The petitioner had claimed back-wages in his claim petition (P 1) though he did not make such a claim in his statement (P 4) recorded in the Labour Court, but he did say that he remained unemployed during the period his services remained terminated. Under these circumstances the Labour Court did err in not allowing back-wages to-the petitioner on the ground that he-had not made a pointed claim for back-wages in his statement (P 4).

5. The onus to prove that the petitioner had remained gainfully employed during the period his services remained terminated is on the employer. In case the employer-fails to discharge the onus on this point the workman is entitled full back-wages-for the period his services remained terminated.

6. In the result I accept the Writ Petition and quash the order of the Labour Court dated June 23, 1976 (P 5) regarding disallowing back-wages to the petitioner and remand the case to the Labour Court on this point which will be decided afresh in the light of the observations made above after allowing the parties to lead evidence if they so desire. No order as to costs.

7. Petition allowed.