D.V Sehgal, J.:— The petitioner is employed as a driver with Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation, respondent No. 1. His services were terminated by respondent No. 1 on 13.3.1977 on the ground that he was absent from duty. The following industrial dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, respondent No. 2, at the instance of the petitioner:—
“Whether the termination of services of Airiar Singh workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled?”
2. Respondent No. 2 made his award dated 12.1.1978 (Annexure P. 1) holding-that the services of the petitioner were not lawfully terminated. He had submitted his application for leave but the same was not considered by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 was of the opinion that the order of termination was rather harsh and decided the issue against the Management respondent No. 1. Reinstatement of the petitioner was, therefore, directed.
3. He was, however, held not entitled to back wages on the ground that his own fault had led to the termination of his services. The grievance of the petitioner made in the present writ-petition is that he has been wrongly denied back wages through the award Annexure P-1.
4. I heard the learned counsel. I find force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. It is quite clear that the petitioner was removed from service because of his absence from duty which, in itself, constitutes misconduct. It was incumbent on respondent No. 1 to have followed the rules of natural justice before removing him from service. There is no valid ground for denying payment of back wages to him. A Full Bench of this Court in Hari Palace, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1979 P.L.R 720, has held hat ordinarily a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness and that is the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. There are no such circumstances available in the present case. I, therefore, allow this petition, quash a part of the award Annexure Pr-1, whereby the petitioner had been denied payment of back wages and direct respondent No. 1 to pay him the back wages from the date of the termination of his services till the date of his reinstatement in service. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
5. Petition allowed.