103 1. MS KS SPORTS PROPRIETOR THE PRESIDING OFFICER JALANDHAR AND ANR. 2. MS KS SPORTS, BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JALANDHAR AND ANR. 3. MS KS SPORTS, BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JALANDHAR AND ANR. CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08 CM-5219 CWP-19087 MS KS SPORTS, BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR PROPRIETOR VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JALANDHAR AND ANR. CM-5276 CWP-19545 MS KS SPORTS, BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JALANDHAR AND ANR. CM-5223 CWP-19594 MS KS SPORTS, BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, JALANDHAR AND ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for the petitioner(s). None for the respondents. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08-05-2025 5219-CWP-2025 in/and 19087-2017 , BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR THROUGH ITS ........Petitioner(s) VERSUS , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ........Respondent(s) 5276-CWP-2025 in/and 19545-2017 MS KS SPORTS, BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR THROUGH ITS ........Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ........Respondent(s) 5223-CWP-2025 in/and 19594-2017 MS KS SPORTS, BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR THROUGH ITS ........Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Advocate HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) THROUGH ITS ........Petitioner(s) , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ........Respondent(s) MS KS SPORTS, BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR THROUGH ITS r(s) THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ........Respondent(s) MS KS SPORTS, BASTI NAU, JALANDHAR THROUGH ITS itioner(s) THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5219-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No.19087 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected cases -2- CM-5219-CWP-2025 in CWP-19087-2025 CM-5276-CWP-2025 in CWP-19545-2017 and CM-5223-CWP-2025 in CWP-19594-2017 Present applications have been filed for recalling the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by this Court, by which, the present writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same are allowed. Consequently, the order dated 06.03.2025 is recalled and the present bunch of writ petitions are taken up for hearing today itself. CWP-19087-2017 and other connected cases 1. In the present bunch of petitions, the challenge is to the award dated 09.08.2016 passed by Tribunal, copy of which has been appended as Annexure-10 by which, the respondent-Workmen were directed to be reinstated in service and were further directed to be provided with the benefit of backwages for the period starting from 28.04.2001 to 19.11.2004. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the benefit of backwages can only be granted to the respondent- Workmen in case, there has been a termination of the services of the respondent-Workmen, which termination is contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as “1947 Act”), whereas the findings have been recorded by the Labour Court that the service of the respondent-Workmen have not been terminated in violation of the provisions of the 1947 Act, and rather notices were issued to them by the petitioner- SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5219-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No.19087 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected cases -3- Corporation to perform their duties but the respondent-Workmen did not turn up to perform their duties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the claim petition was filed by the respondent-Workmen only with an intent to get the benefit of backwages and even after the passing of the award dated 09.08.2016 (Annexure P-10), the respondent-Workmen never came up for joining back in the service or filed any petition so as to allow them to join the services and only the backwages one being claimed. 4. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present case with his able assistance. 6. Once, a finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that there was no termination of the services of the respondent-Workmen at the hands of the petitioner-Establishment and all the efforts were made by the petitioner-Establishment to allow the respondent-Workmen to work and even during the proceedings before the Labour court, statement was made that the respondent-Workmen can perform the duties but, it is a matter of fact that none of the respondent-Workmen turned up to perform the duties, recording a finding, the services were terminated, is contrary to the facts and evidence. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case once, no illegality on the part of the petitioner-Establishment was recorded in the impugned award, the grant of benefit of backwages by the Labour Court needs to be considered by this Court. SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5219-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No.19087 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected cases -4- 8. Once, despite asking the respondent-Workmen to work, the respondent-Workmen never came back to join the duties, this clearly shows that they were not interested in performing the duties with the petitioner- Corporation. 9. In such circumstances, the Court should be more careful as to whether, the intention of the respondent-Workmen is to get the wages or to actually perform the duties. 10. In the present case, the respondent-Workmen were only interested in backwages and not to perform the duties with the petitioner- Corporation. 11. Further, the benefit of backwages are to be given in case, the respondent-Workmen is not gainfully employed for the period he/she remained out of service and the said benefit is to be considered keeping in view the evidence produce by the respondent-Workmen. 12. In the present case, no such evidence has been noticed while granting the benefit of backwages to the respondent-Workmen, who were not willing to join back the duties hence, in the present case, it can be very well said that the effort of the respondent-Workmen was only to get the amount qua the backwages from the petitioner-Establishment rather than performing the duties and the assertion of the petitioner-Establishment that the respondent-Workmen left the job themselves, can be very well to be presumed to be correct. Hence, the benefit of backwages has been wrongly granted to the Workmen by the Labour Court in the order impugned and workman will not be entitled for any backwages. SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-5219-CWP-2025 in/and CWP No.19087 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected cases -5- 13. Hence, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the award dated 09.08.2016 (Annexure P-10) is modified accordingly. 14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 15. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. 08-05-2025 Sapna Goyal (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document