Gaya Parshad vs The President Officer and Another

Augustine George Masih, J.—Present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 2.3.1990 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, to the extent that it denies the petitioner arrears of pay beyond 60%. Counsel for respondent No. 2 has brought to the notice of the Court that a similar matter has already been decided by this Court, i.e. CWP No. 802 of 1992 on 18.11.2010 preferred by the Workman claiming the same benefit. Two writ petitions preferred by the Management, i.e. CWPs No. 12168 and 12169 of 1990 were also disposed of by a common order. He on this basis contends that no further relief is required to be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner, however, asserts that the petitioner is entitled to full back wages and has been wrongly denied the benefit of arrears of pay beyond the extent of 60%.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and on going through the award passed by the Labour Court, I do not find any infirmity in the same and, therefore, uphold the award dated 2.3.1990 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh. Dismissed.