Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Block Officer with respondent No. 2 on 23rd July 1966 and his services were terminated on February 14, 1969. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana, and vide award dated February 2, 1978 the learned Labour Court held the termination of services of the petitioner to be not justified and ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages @ 30% i.e. Rs. 120/- per month with effect from February 18, 1969 till his actual reinstatement. 2. The award passed by the learned Labour Court was challenged by respondent i.e. Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the `Corporation) by filing CWP No. 1584 of 1980. However, the said writ petition was dismissed on October 30, 1992. The petitioner also filed CWP No. 3308 of 1980 claiming full back wages and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court by observing as under :- "Petitioner workman was retrenched on February 18, 1969 as is mentioned in the award and the Govt. on demand made by him referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court vide reference No. 208 of 1970 while holding the workman entitled to only 30% of the wages, the labour Court has simply mentioned that it could not be believed that the petitioner workman remained without a job ever since 1969. Relevant part of the award reads as under:- "The workman further stated that he was unable to get any employment in spite of his best efforts but he failed to specify the efforts made by him. It is unbelievable that he remained without a job ever since 19 Feb. 1969. In my opinion, therefore, besides the relief of reinstatement he should be granted back wages at the rate of 30% which comes out to be Rs. 120/- per month." In Hari Palace Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court another, 1979 PLR 720, Full Bench of this Court has held that 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. This is the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. This is the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. The management brought no proof of the records of the case that the petitioner during the period of his enforced idleness, was gainfully employed and, therefore, there was nothing at all to disbelieve the statement of the workman. Following the dictum of law laid down by Full Bench in Hari Palaces case (supra), I modify the award Annexure P-2 and hold the workman entitled to full back wages from the date he made a demand upto the date of reinstatement. No order as to costs." As repeated representations failed to have any effect on the respondents for permitting the petitioner to join his duty and pay back wages, the petitioner filed another CWP No. 10776 of 1997 for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Corporation to allow the petitioner to join his duty and pay him full back wages/arrears of salary with interest @ 18% per annum from the date it fell due till payment. 3. CWP No. 10776 of 1997 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court on October 22, 1997 and directions were issued to the respondent-Corporation to implement the award of the Labour Court dated February 2, 1978 as modified by this Court on 4.10.1996. A further direction was also issued to the respondent-corporation by this Court to implement the modified award of the Labour Court in its entirety on or before 17th November, 1997. It was also directed that the respondent-Corporation will pay interest @ 15% per annum on the amount of back wages and other allowances payable to the petitioner from the date of award till date of payment. The operative part of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 10776 of 1997 decided on October 22, 1997 reads as under :- "Having heard Councel for the parties and after perusing the record, we direct the respondent-Corporation (Management) to implement the modified award of the Labour Court in its entirety on or before November 17, 1997. This will, however, be subject to any order that may be passed by the Letters Patent Bench in the appeal preferred by the management. This will, however, be subject to any order that may be passed by the Letters Patent Bench in the appeal preferred by the management. Management is further directed to pay interest @ 15 per cent per annum on the amount of back wages and other allowances payable to the workman from the date of the award till the date of payment." 4. The respondent-Corporation instead of implementing the directions of this Court chose to move CM No. 25888 of 1998 in CWP No. 10776 of 1997 seeking some more time to discharge the liabilities and it was prayed that the time for implementation of the award be extended. Vide Order dated November 21, 1997 the time to implement the award and carry out orders passed by this Court was extended upto 15th January, 1998 and it was also made clear that no further time shall be allowed. In spite of extension of time, the respondent- Corporation neither permitted the petitioner to join duty nor he was paid a single penny of back wages by the respondent-Corporation. Left with no other option, the petitioner filed a contempt petition against the Managing Director of the Corporation. In the said petition though the Court came to the conclusion that there was prima facie disobedience of the order passed by this Court, but instead of taking any action, a time of one month was granted to the Managing Director to comply with the directions issued in CWP No. 10776 of 1997. The respondent-Corporation was also directed to reinstate the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to join duty on 7th January, 1999 and a sum of Rs. 2,02,575/- (Rs. two lacs two thousand seventy five only) was also paid on 8th January, 1999. In the contempt petition this Court finally came to the conclusion that since the Labour Court award was implemented and the petitioner had joined duty and superannuated, the only claim now left was with regard to back wages to be paid to the petitioner and, therefore, he was directed to approach the respondent-Corporation for recovery of balance amount. The contempt petition and the appeal arising therefrom were finally disposed of and the petitioner was given liberty to pursue the remedy available to him under the law in case the amount due to him is not paid by the Corporation. The contempt petition and the appeal arising therefrom were finally disposed of and the petitioner was given liberty to pursue the remedy available to him under the law in case the amount due to him is not paid by the Corporation. The petitioner thereafter had filed another contempt petition bearing No. COCP No. 1561 of 2003. However, the same was dismissed by this Court on 4th July 2005 on account of maintainability. The petitioner by way of said contempt petition sought to enforce the ad interim order passed in the present writ petition, wherein directions were issued to the respondent- Corporation to pay arrears of back wages to the petitioner, as ordered by this Court. 5. During the pendency of this writ petition in order to defeat the rights of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 25th September 2006 holding therein that the petitioner was not entitled to back wages. The order Annexure P-9 reads as under:- "Shri Kanwar Singh Block Officer was appointed as such in the pay scale of Rs. 250-15-400-20-500. His services were terminated on 16.2.1969 which were challenged by him in Labour Court in Ref. No. 206/70 and the same was decided in his favour vide Award dated 2.2.1978 and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 30% back wages. The award was challenged by the Corporation i.e. PLDRC in CWP No. 1854 of 1980 (PLDRC v. The Presiding Officer and others) which was admitted and the operation of the award was stayed. Shri Kanwar Singh also, subsequently challenged award in CWP No. 3308 of 1980 (Kanwar Singh v. PLDRC and others) which was also admitted on 17.9.1980 and ordered to be heard along with CWP No. 1854 of 1980. 2. Both these writ petitions i.e. 1854 of 1980 and 3308 of 1980 were listed in the High Court together and were dismissed in default on 30.10.1992. The Corporation did not come to know about the listing and dismissal in default of its writ petition, nor it was informed by its counsel. However, Shri Kanwar Singh came to know of the decision and got the same restored. The said CWP No. 3308 of 1980 was later on decided ex parte by the Court on 4.10.1996 by Honble Justice V.K. Bali. The back wages were modified from 30% to 100%. However, Shri Kanwar Singh came to know of the decision and got the same restored. The said CWP No. 3308 of 1980 was later on decided ex parte by the Court on 4.10.1996 by Honble Justice V.K. Bali. The back wages were modified from 30% to 100%. Thereafter, Shri Kanwar Singh filed another CWP No. 10776 of 1996 for the execution of the award of the Labour Court as modified by the Honble Court vide order dated 4.10.1996. It was ordered in the said writ petition that the Corporation would also pay 15% interest. Shri Kanwar Singh thereafter, filed COCP No. 190 of 1998 in order to get the award of the Labour Court and the judgment rendered by the High Court in CWP No. 10776 of 1997 executed. Shri Kanwar Singh retired in between and a payment of Rs. 202575/- as arrears of back wages with interest was paid vide cheque No. 0312510 dated 8.1.1999 which was given in the court during the proceedings of COCP No. 190 of 1998, which was dismissed on 16.2.1990 after the making of payment and reinstatement of Shri Kanwar Singh. The operating part of the order dated 16.2.1999 is reproduced as under :- "It is not disputed that in pursuance to the Court Direction the award of the Labour Court has since been implemented and that petitioner was made to join duty. He has since superannuated. The only claim, which has now to be met by the Corporation, is in regard to back wages to be paid to him. Admittedly a sum of Rs. two lacs has been paid to him. This does not appear to be the full amount of wages due to the petitioner on the basis of award of Labour Court. He is directed to approach the Corporation for recovery of the balance amount and in case the same is not paid, it will be open to him to pursue him remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act. No case for contempt is made out. Consequently the petition is dismissed." 3. Shri Kanwar Singh submitted a claim on 30.5.1999 to the corporation, in pursuance of the order of the Honble Court amounting to Rs. 30,72,989/- including interest of 15%. No case for contempt is made out. Consequently the petition is dismissed." 3. Shri Kanwar Singh submitted a claim on 30.5.1999 to the corporation, in pursuance of the order of the Honble Court amounting to Rs. 30,72,989/- including interest of 15%. The said claim is annexed to the reply filed by the Corporation in the Honble High Court in COCP No. 1561 of 2003 titled as Kanwar Singh v. Dhupinder Singh M.D. PLDRC and is marked as Annexure R-5. 4. The perusal of the claim shows that it is inflated and is not based on actual scales of pay and allowances in force in the Corporation. Therefore, the Corporation calculated the arrears due to Shri Kanwarl Singh for the period in question, which amounts to Rs. 8,93,550.80 excluding interest. It does not include the house rent claimed by Shri Kanwar Singh because he was not in service during the claim period. The house rent is compensatory in nature. It includes fixed medical allowance w.e.f. January, 1998 when it was introduced by the Government by notification/circular No. 5/22/97-IFPI/11179 dated 31.12.1997. The calculations of the arrears due and the Punjab Government circular are at Annexures-A and B respectively. 5. The perusal of the judgment dated 4.10.1996 shows that it has followed the Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Palace v. The Presiding Officer, 1979 PLR 720 wherein, the Full Bench held that the illegally retrenched workman, when reinstated is entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gain fully employed during the enforced idleness. Enquiries were made and it came to notice that Shri Kanwar Singh owns 19 Acres of Agriculture land in village Shahpur Begu Tehsil Sirsa. The break up of the said land is : Canal irrigated (nehri) = 61K-01 Marla, Well irrigated (Chahi) = 89K-01 Marla & rest 3K-01 Marla. The Jamabandi of the land is annexed to the reply of COCP No. 1561 of 2003 in the Honble High Court as Annexure R-6. The said land is fertile and is self cultivated from 1969 till 1998-99 i.e. till Sh. Kanwar Singh retired from the service of the corporation. Copies of khasra girdawari of the land owned and self-cultivated by Sh. Kanwar Singh, are collectively at Annexure-C. 6. Sh. The said land is fertile and is self cultivated from 1969 till 1998-99 i.e. till Sh. Kanwar Singh retired from the service of the corporation. Copies of khasra girdawari of the land owned and self-cultivated by Sh. Kanwar Singh, are collectively at Annexure-C. 6. Sh. Kanwar Singh was asked vide letter dated 5.7.2006 to furnish an affidavit as to whether he was gainfully employed or not during the period he claimed arrears showing the extent of his earnings and source of earnings in order to determine the payable arrears. This letter was sent to Sh. Kanwar Singh through registered post but Sh. Kanwar Singh has not furnished the affidavit, so far. Copy of the letter dated 5.7.2006 is annexed with this letter as Annexure-D. 7. Sh. Kanwar Singh is B.Sc. (Agriculture). Had he been in the service of the corporation during the said period, the corporation would have got the benefit of his skill and services. He was not in service and he devoted his time, energy and skill to the self-cultivation of the land in his village Shahpur Begu Tehsil Sirsa (Haryana) comprising about 19 acres. In Haryana State v. Rajbir, 1998(3) SCT 21 : 1998(4) SLR 629, if the employee was relieved of his duties on acceptance of resignation, the question arose if he being gainfully self employed was entitled to claim the arrears of salary consequent upon quashing of the order accepting the resignation. The Honble Court held that "we do not consider it appropriate that the employer should bear the burden of salary for the period during which the employee was practicing as an Advocate i.e. was gainfully employed." In the said case respondent Rajbir who was qualified as Law Graduate and after his resignation got licence from Bar Council for practicing law as an Advocate. The contention was when termination of service is found illegal the employee deserves full back wages. In para 8 of the judgment it is held as under :- "This, undoubtedly, is the general view. However, in the present case it appears that the respondent had submitted the resignation with the purpose of starting legal practice, when his resignation was accepted before the due date he had not protested but had actually availed of the opportunity to obtain a license. However, in the present case it appears that the respondent had submitted the resignation with the purpose of starting legal practice, when his resignation was accepted before the due date he had not protested but had actually availed of the opportunity to obtain a license. The licence having been obtained on July 3, 1990 for permission to withdraw the resignation was a device for use at a later stage. The respondent conducted cases. He claims to have earned only an amount of Rs. 13,000/-. It may be so, yet the fact remains that the respondent was gainfully employed. He had not started legal practice on account of the termination of his services. In fact, he had resigned to start legal practice. In this situation, we do not consider it appropriate that the employer should bear the burden of the salary for the period during which the employee was practicing as an Advocate." A copy of the judgment is annexed as Annexure-I. 8. Therefore, the earnings from self-cultivation from land owned by Sh. Kanwar Singh are to be deducted from the arrears due to him because he was gainfully employed in self-cultivation of land owned by him. He has installed a tubewell there and also having a tractor as per the enquiries made by the Corporation. A letter was written on 21.8.2006 to the Collector Sirsa (Haryana) to supply the batai and yield rates of the different crops of Agriculture year-wise as per record maintained in his collectorate from 1973-1999 to assess the earnings of Sh. Kanwar Singh. The Collector Sirsa (Haryana) has supplied the information and also have assessed the earnings of Sh. Kanwar Singh year-wise vide letter No. 5057/sk dated 21.9.2006, copy of Collector Sirsa dated 21.9.2006 is at Annexure-F. The earnings of self-employment from the said land owned by Shri Kanwar Singh as assessed by the Revenue Authorities as per the said order of Collector Sirsa, as per the crops sown by Kanwar Singh from Kharif 1980 to Rabi 2000 amount to Rs. 29,02659.25 and calculating it from the said chart upto kharif 1998 to comes out to Rs. 24,26,412.50. 29,02659.25 and calculating it from the said chart upto kharif 1998 to comes out to Rs. 24,26,412.50. The data before the year 1979 is not available with the revenue authorities concerned and are not in a position to assess the earning of Kanwar Singh of his self-employment from 18.2.1969 to 31.12.1979, as such these are to be estimated from the data supplied by the authorities from 1980 to 2000. Taking the earnings of self-employment from 18.2.1969 to 31.12.1979 @ Rs. 50,000/- per year, the same come out to be Rs. 6,00,000/- because the earnings from self-employment from the year 1980 to 1998 amount to Rs. 24,26,412.50. Therefore, the earning from gainful employment for the period in question amount to Rs. 30,26,412.50. The earnings of gainful employment, thus, far exceed the arrears of salary of the claim period. 9. The arrears due to Sh. Kanwar Singh as worked out in as per Annexure A is Rs. 8,93,503.80. A cheque of Rs. 2,02,575/- was given to Sh. Kanwar Singh vide cheque No. 0312510 dated 8.1.1999 and therefore, the remaining arrears as worked out are of Rs. 6,90,928/-. The earnings from gainful employment are Rs. 30,26,412.50. Thus, the earnings of gainful employment during the period in question are more than the amount of arrears worked out, therefore nothing more is payable to Sh. Kanwar Singh following the principle of no unjust enrichment." The aforesaid order has been impugned in the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the order passed is wholly arbitrary, contemptuous and not sustainable in the eye of law as the Managing Director of the Corporation in passing the said order has assumed the powers which were not vested in him, as this Court has nowhere permitted him to adjudicate upon the claims to which the petitioner was entitled to. Rather in CWP No. 3308 of 1980 decided on 4th October, 1996, it was clearly mentioned that the Management brought no proof on record of the case that the petitioner during the period of force idleness was gainfully employed and, therefore, there was nothing at all to disbelieve the statement of the workman-petitioner. It was in view of this finding that this Court was pleased to hold that the workman was entitled to full back wages from the date he made demand upto the date of reinstatement. It was in view of this finding that this Court was pleased to hold that the workman was entitled to full back wages from the date he made demand upto the date of reinstatement. This order was further affirmed by this Court in CWP No. 10776 of 1997, wherein clear directions were issued to the respondent-Corporation that modified award of the Labour Court be implemented in its entirety on or before November 17, 1997. This order was passed subject to any order which may be passed by the LPA Bench in the appeal preferred by the Management. Interest of 15 per cent was also imposed on the respondent-Corporation. 6. It is not in dispute that Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondent- Corporation was also dismissed by this Court and thus there was no authority or jurisdiction whatsoever with the Managing Director to pass the impugned order (Annexure P-9). 7. The claim filed by the petitioner was contested by the respondent- Corporation. It was claimed that CWP No. 3308 of 1980 filed by the petitioner was, in fact, a counter-blast in CWP No. 1854 of 1980 vide which the award of the Labour Court was challenged. It was further claimed that the petitioner got his writ petition restored and the same was allowed ex parte and the award of the Labour Court was modified. However, the writ filed by the respondent- Corporation was not restored. It was also claimed that this was an act of concealment on the part of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter regarding payment of award money as per judgment of this Court in CWP No. 3308 of 1980 and CWP No. 10776 of 1997 was finally concluded on 16th February 1999 by passing the following operative order :- "It is not disputed that in pursuance of the Court direction the award of the Labour Court has since been implemented and that the petitioner was made to join duty. He has since superannuated. The only claim, which has now to be met by the Corporation, in regard to back wages to be paid to him. Admittedly a sum of Rs. two lacs has been paid to him. This does not appear to be the full amount of wages due to the petitioner on the basis of the award of the Labour Court. The only claim, which has now to be met by the Corporation, in regard to back wages to be paid to him. Admittedly a sum of Rs. two lacs has been paid to him. This does not appear to be the full amount of wages due to the petitioner on the basis of the award of the Labour Court. He is directed to approach the Corporation for recovery of the balance amount and in case the same is not paid, it will be open to him to pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. No case for contempt is made out. Consequently, the petition is dismissed." However, it may be noticed that the order referred to above was, in fact, passed in the contempt petition and not in CWP as mentioned in the written statement. 9 It was also the case of the respondents that even the review petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by this Court in COCP No. 190 of 1998 was not successful and the said review was also dismissed on 15.3.1999 by observing as under :- "This is an application filed u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the modification of the order dated 16.2.1999 disposing of COCP No. 190 of 1998 wherein it was observed that the petitioner would approach the Corporation for the recovery of the balance amount due to him and in case of the same is not paid, it will be open to him to pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that he should be allowed to pursue any remedy that is available to him under the law. Having heard counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue whatever remedy is available to him under the law in case the amount due to him, if any, is not paid by the Corporation. This is, however, no ground to review my order dated 16.2.1999." 10. Having heard counsel for the applicant, the application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue whatever remedy is available to him under the law in case the amount due to him, if any, is not paid by the Corporation. This is, however, no ground to review my order dated 16.2.1999." 10. Learned counsel for the respondents thereafter contended that in contempt position this Court was pleased to order that the petitioner could have recourse under the Industrial Disputes Act, for the recovery of balance amount, if any, or to establish for any other monetary benefit independently before the Court in writ proceedings and he would not be entitled to initiate any fresh contempt proceedings. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, was that the only remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the Labour Court for implementation of the award. The allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition were controverted by denying the same. However, the same are being ignored as no notice of such allegations has been taken. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents thereafter contended that the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions could only be enforced by initiating proceedings before the Labour Court and in support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, 2003(1) SCT 368 : 2003 LIC 78, wherein it has been held as under :- "It becomes once more necessary for this Court to remind and reiterate to all the Courts, Tribunal and authorities in the country, what has been stated earlier in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and another, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 134 : 1997(6) SCC 450 "32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate Courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders, which necessarily has the effect of granting, wrongly and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops." However, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents has no relevance, whatsoever, in the matter in dispute. 13 It was further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order was passed by the Managing Director in compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 16.2.1999 as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court which have become final. It was also contended that the petitioner was not entitled to any arrears of back wages as his earning by way of gainful employment was more than the amount to which he was entitled to. 14. On a consideration of the matter, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stand of the respondents is totally arbitrary and contemptuous on the face of it. The order dated 4th October, 1996 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3308 of 1980 was clear and unambiguous, wherein it was clearly held that the Management had brought no proof on record of the case that the petitioner during his forced idleness was gainfully employed and, there was nothing to disbelieve the statement of the petitioner. No liberty was given to respondent No. 2 to sit over the said judgment and pass any independent order as has been done by way of impugned order (Annexure P-9). 15. It may further be noticed that in CWP No. 10776 of 1997, the Division Bench of this Court again reiterated that the respondents were bound to implement the modified award of the Labour Court in its entirety, but subject to the decision of the Letters Patent Appeal. After the said appeal was dismissed, there was no option with the respondents but to implement the order in its entirety and give all the benefits flowing from the award to the petitioner. Instead of implementing the award honestly, a deliberate attempt has been made to over-reach the Court by passing the impugned order, which is not only contemptuous, but also perverse on the face of it. Instead of implementing the award honestly, a deliberate attempt has been made to over-reach the Court by passing the impugned order, which is not only contemptuous, but also perverse on the face of it. The Managing Director had no authority to sit over the judgment passed by this Court and to come to the conclusion that the workman-petitioner was not entitled to any back wages and interestingly, the gainful employment alleged against the petitioner is that he was cultivating the land and, therefore, earned the amount from the same. There cannot be more arbitrary order than the one under consideration. The Managing Director was not proceeded against for contempt of court merely because of the previous order passed by this Court barring the petitioner from moving any petition for contempt. However, the liberty was granted to enforce his rights through the Labour Court or by filing separate writ, but in order to defeat the rights granted to the petitioner, the impugned order (Annexure P-9) has been passed. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed, with costs, the impugned order attached as Annexure P-9 is ordered to be set aside and it is ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits flowing to him under the award as modified by this Court which has attained finality. The costs are quantified at Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. fifteen thousand). The respondent-Corporation would be entitled to recover the costs imposed by this Court from the Managing Director, who passed the impugned order. All the benefits due to the workman-petitioner shall be released within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.