JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioner-Union has prayed for modification of the Award passed by learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal), in Reference No. 81 of 2002, to the extent that 81 workmen, whose names were reflected in the demand notice and while answering the Reference, learned Tribunal has set aside whose illegal termination, be granted full back wages. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this case are that appropriate Government made the following Reference for the purpose of adjudication to the learned Tribunal:- "Whether the termination of the services of 81 workmen as detailed in Annexure of Demand Notice of Pradhan, Baijnath Tea Estate Mazdoor Sangh, Baijnath by the Management of Baijnath Tea Estate Co. (P) Ltd. Baijnath, Distt. Kangra, H.P. w.e.f. 14.1.2001 without complying the section 25-N/25-N of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the affected workmen are entitled to?" 3. The claim of the workmen, members of the petitioner-Sangh, was that 81 workmen, whose names were reflected in the Demand Notice were working with the management for the last 10-30 years. All the workmen had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year, yet, their services were terminated w.e.f. 14.1.2001, without any charge-sheet, inquiry, notice or retrenchment compensation. As per the workmen, termination was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and further as management had not sought any permission from the Government in respect of retrenchment of 81 workmen, the management had also violated the provisions of Section 25-N as also Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act as no permission was sought by the management from the Government while closing down the tea plantations and factory w.e.f. 01.05.2001. 4. By way of the Award under challenge, learned Tribunal while answering the Reference granted the following relief to the workmen:- "For the foregoing reasons discussed hereinabove supra, the reference is allowed. The termination of the 81 workmen (mentioned in Annexure to the Demand Charter) is set aside and quashed. The said workmen are entitled for reinstatement and continuity of service from the date of their illegal termination, except back-wages. The respondent shall reinstate the petitioners forthwith. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. The said workmen are entitled for reinstatement and continuity of service from the date of their illegal termination, except back-wages. The respondent shall reinstate the petitioners forthwith. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication in the official gazette and the file after completion consigned to the record room." 5. Back wages were denied by the learned Tribunal by holding that initial onus was upon the workmen to prove that they were not gainfully employed during their forced period of idleness, therefore, a sweeping statement made by PW1, the Pradhan of the Union that all of them were unemployed since they were retrenched, did not seem to be sufficient to hold that workmen were not gainfully employed during the said interregnum. These findings stand assailed by the petitioner-Sangh. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as it was not in dispute that number of workmen engaged by the management was more than 100, the same attracted the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further argued that as it was clearly and categorically deposed by the Pradhan of the petitioner-Sangh before the learned Tribunal that none of the workmen were gainfully employed during the period they were forced to remain idle, the onus stood discharged by the workmen and the onus shifted upon the management to demonstrate that the workmen were gainfully employed, which onus, according to learned Counsel, the management had failed to discharge. Mr. Mahajan has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW1 Shri Prem Nath, who was the President of the petitioner-Union and who on 24.7.2003, deposed in the Court that all the workmen were unemployed since they were retrenched. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the cross examination of the said witness as also the statement of witness of the management. Mr. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the cross examination of the said witness as also the statement of witness of the management. Mr. Mahajan has also placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 18 of 2007, titled as The Telecom District Manager, Telecommunication vs. Shashi Kamal and another and the connected matter, decided on 26.02.2010, in which, it has been held that when the workmen had deposed that they were unemployed in cross examination, then it could not be said that it was a case of no evidence of unemployment of workmen during the period they were disengaged by the management. He has submitted that in the present case, the case of the petitioner was on a better footing because president of the petitioner-Union has stated so in his examination-in-chief itself and the veracity of his statement was not shattered by the opposite party during the course of cross examination. Accordingly, Mr. Mahhajan has prayed that the petition be allowed and the award under challenge be modified to the extent that management be directed to grant full back wages to the 81 retrenched workman. 7. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Management, on the other hand, while defending the Award has argued that many out of 81 workmen were in fact not entitled to any relief whatsoever as they had compromised the matter with the management as full and final settlement and this aspect of the matter was not looked into by the learned Tribunal while passing the Award. Mr. Gupta has further argued that the management has filed CMP No. 6196 of 2017 in this petition itself alongwith which documents stood appended to demonstrate that number of workmen had settled the matter with the management as full and final. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no merit in the petition and the same be dismissed. No other point was urged. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned Award as well as record of the case. 9. As the Award passed by the learned Tribunal has not been assailed by the management, therefore, finding of fact returned by the learned Tribunal that the retrenchment of 81 workmen was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act has attained finality. 9. As the Award passed by the learned Tribunal has not been assailed by the management, therefore, finding of fact returned by the learned Tribunal that the retrenchment of 81 workmen was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act has attained finality. It is also not in dispute that there were more than 100 workmen engaged by the respondent-management. Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with the condition precedent to retrenchment of the workman, Clause (7) of the same reads as under:- "(7) Where no application for permission under subsection (1) is made, or where the permission for any retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the notice of retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him." 10. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Clifton Electroniks and another vs Lt. Governor and others, 1996 74 FLR 1943, while interpreting the Sub-Clause (6) of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, language of which Sub-Clause is para-materia to Sub-Clause 7 of Section 25-N, held that entitlement to all benefits under any law for the time being in force, obviously included wages. 11. Now, the only reason which weighed with learned Tribunal for denying back wages to 81 retrenched workmen was that except the bald statement of the president of the Union, there was no material on record to suggest that the workmen were not gainfully employed during their retrenchment period. 12. In my considered view, this finding returned by the learned Labour Court is not sustainable in law. It has come on record that Pradhan of the petitioner-Union categorically deposed in the Court that during the period when the 81 workmen were forced to remain idle, none of them was gainfully employed. In my considered view, as far as workmen are concerned, this is all the workman could have stated before the learned Tribunal. It is not understood as to of what kind of evidence a workman was supposed to place on record to substantiate that he was not gainfully employed. In my considered view, as far as workmen are concerned, this is all the workman could have stated before the learned Tribunal. It is not understood as to of what kind of evidence a workman was supposed to place on record to substantiate that he was not gainfully employed. Once it had come on record on behalf of the workmen that they were not gainfully employed during the period when they were forced to remain idle on account of their illegal retrenchment, onus shifted upon the management to demonstrate and prove that the workmen were gainfully employed. Cross examination of PW1 demonstrates that the veracity of the testimony of this witness could not be impeached by the management and no suggestion was given to the said witness by the management that the workmen were in fact gainfully employed. Similarly, neither RW1 nor other evidence placed on record by the management proved the factum of the workmen being gainfully employed. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 18 of 2007 (supra), it could not be said that there was no evidence on record of unemployment of the workmen during the period they were disengaged by the management. This important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Tribunal by disallowing back wages to the workmen. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by directing the modification of the Award passed by learned Tribunal to the extent that workmen are held to be entitled to back wages also, in accordance with law. 14. As far as the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent- management is concerned that by way of miscellaneous application, i.e. CMP No. 6196 of 2017, they have placed on record the documents to substantiate that many of the workmen have settled the matter with the management as full and final, the only observation, which this Court can make is this that at the time of execution of the Award, said facts can be brought to the notice of the learned Executing Court by the management and the Executing Court, but obvious, will look into the same, while executing the Award, subject to all legal rights available to the workmen. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioner-Union has prayed for modification of the Award passed by learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal), in Reference No. 81 of 2002, to the extent that 81 workmen, whose names were reflected in the demand notice and while answering the Reference, learned Tribunal has set aside whose illegal termination, be granted full back wages. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this case are that appropriate Government made the following Reference for the purpose of adjudication to the learned Tribunal:- "Whether the termination of the services of 81 workmen as detailed in Annexure of Demand Notice of Pradhan, Baijnath Tea Estate Mazdoor Sangh, Baijnath by the Management of Baijnath Tea Estate Co. (P) Ltd. Baijnath, Distt. Kangra, H.P. w.e.f. 14.1.2001 without complying the section 25-N/25-N of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the affected workmen are entitled to?" 3. The claim of the workmen, members of the petitioner-Sangh, was that 81 workmen, whose names were reflected in the Demand Notice were working with the management for the last 10-30 years. All the workmen had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year, yet, their services were terminated w.e.f. 14.1.2001, without any charge-sheet, inquiry, notice or retrenchment compensation. As per the workmen, termination was in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and further as management had not sought any permission from the Government in respect of retrenchment of 81 workmen, the management had also violated the provisions of Section 25-N as also Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act as no permission was sought by the management from the Government while closing down the tea plantations and factory w.e.f. 01.05.2001. 4. By way of the Award under challenge, learned Tribunal while answering the Reference granted the following relief to the workmen:- "For the foregoing reasons discussed hereinabove supra, the reference is allowed. The termination of the 81 workmen (mentioned in Annexure to the Demand Charter) is set aside and quashed. The said workmen are entitled for reinstatement and continuity of service from the date of their illegal termination, except back-wages. The respondent shall reinstate the petitioners forthwith. The termination of the 81 workmen (mentioned in Annexure to the Demand Charter) is set aside and quashed. The said workmen are entitled for reinstatement and continuity of service from the date of their illegal termination, except back-wages. The respondent shall reinstate the petitioners forthwith. The reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for publication in the official gazette and the file after completion consigned to the record room." 5. Back wages were denied by the learned Tribunal by holding that initial onus was upon the workmen to prove that they were not gainfully employed during their forced period of idleness, therefore, a sweeping statement made by PW1, the Pradhan of the Union that all of them were unemployed since they were retrenched, did not seem to be sufficient to hold that workmen were not gainfully employed during the said interregnum. These findings stand assailed by the petitioner-Sangh. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as it was not in dispute that number of workmen engaged by the management was more than 100, the same attracted the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further argued that as it was clearly and categorically deposed by the Pradhan of the petitioner-Sangh before the learned Tribunal that none of the workmen were gainfully employed during the period they were forced to remain idle, the onus stood discharged by the workmen and the onus shifted upon the management to demonstrate that the workmen were gainfully employed, which onus, according to learned Counsel, the management had failed to discharge. Mr. Mahajan has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW1 Shri Prem Nath, who was the President of the petitioner-Union and who on 24.7.2003, deposed in the Court that all the workmen were unemployed since they were retrenched. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the cross examination of the said witness as also the statement of witness of the management. Mr. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the cross examination of the said witness as also the statement of witness of the management. Mr. Mahajan has also placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 18 of 2007, titled as The Telecom District Manager, Telecommunication vs. Shashi Kamal and another and the connected matter, decided on 26.02.2010, in which, it has been held that when the workmen had deposed that they were unemployed in cross examination, then it could not be said that it was a case of no evidence of unemployment of workmen during the period they were disengaged by the management. He has submitted that in the present case, the case of the petitioner was on a better footing because president of the petitioner-Union has stated so in his examination-in-chief itself and the veracity of his statement was not shattered by the opposite party during the course of cross examination. Accordingly, Mr. Mahhajan has prayed that the petition be allowed and the award under challenge be modified to the extent that management be directed to grant full back wages to the 81 retrenched workman. 7. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Management, on the other hand, while defending the Award has argued that many out of 81 workmen were in fact not entitled to any relief whatsoever as they had compromised the matter with the management as full and final settlement and this aspect of the matter was not looked into by the learned Tribunal while passing the Award. Mr. Gupta has further argued that the management has filed CMP No. 6196 of 2017 in this petition itself alongwith which documents stood appended to demonstrate that number of workmen had settled the matter with the management as full and final. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no merit in the petition and the same be dismissed. No other point was urged. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned Award as well as record of the case. 9. As the Award passed by the learned Tribunal has not been assailed by the management, therefore, finding of fact returned by the learned Tribunal that the retrenchment of 81 workmen was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act has attained finality. 9. As the Award passed by the learned Tribunal has not been assailed by the management, therefore, finding of fact returned by the learned Tribunal that the retrenchment of 81 workmen was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act has attained finality. It is also not in dispute that there were more than 100 workmen engaged by the respondent-management. Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with the condition precedent to retrenchment of the workman, Clause (7) of the same reads as under:- "(7) Where no application for permission under subsection (1) is made, or where the permission for any retrenchment has been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal from the date on which the notice of retrenchment was given to the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no notice had been given to him." 10. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Clifton Electroniks and another vs Lt. Governor and others, 1996 74 FLR 1943, while interpreting the Sub-Clause (6) of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, language of which Sub-Clause is para-materia to Sub-Clause 7 of Section 25-N, held that entitlement to all benefits under any law for the time being in force, obviously included wages. 11. Now, the only reason which weighed with learned Tribunal for denying back wages to 81 retrenched workmen was that except the bald statement of the president of the Union, there was no material on record to suggest that the workmen were not gainfully employed during their retrenchment period. 12. In my considered view, this finding returned by the learned Labour Court is not sustainable in law. It has come on record that Pradhan of the petitioner-Union categorically deposed in the Court that during the period when the 81 workmen were forced to remain idle, none of them was gainfully employed. In my considered view, as far as workmen are concerned, this is all the workman could have stated before the learned Tribunal. It is not understood as to of what kind of evidence a workman was supposed to place on record to substantiate that he was not gainfully employed. In my considered view, as far as workmen are concerned, this is all the workman could have stated before the learned Tribunal. It is not understood as to of what kind of evidence a workman was supposed to place on record to substantiate that he was not gainfully employed. Once it had come on record on behalf of the workmen that they were not gainfully employed during the period when they were forced to remain idle on account of their illegal retrenchment, onus shifted upon the management to demonstrate and prove that the workmen were gainfully employed. Cross examination of PW1 demonstrates that the veracity of the testimony of this witness could not be impeached by the management and no suggestion was given to the said witness by the management that the workmen were in fact gainfully employed. Similarly, neither RW1 nor other evidence placed on record by the management proved the factum of the workmen being gainfully employed. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 18 of 2007 (supra), it could not be said that there was no evidence on record of unemployment of the workmen during the period they were disengaged by the management. This important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Tribunal by disallowing back wages to the workmen. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed by directing the modification of the Award passed by learned Tribunal to the extent that workmen are held to be entitled to back wages also, in accordance with law. 14. As far as the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent- management is concerned that by way of miscellaneous application, i.e. CMP No. 6196 of 2017, they have placed on record the documents to substantiate that many of the workmen have settled the matter with the management as full and final, the only observation, which this Court can make is this that at the time of execution of the Award, said facts can be brought to the notice of the learned Executing Court by the management and the Executing Court, but obvious, will look into the same, while executing the Award, subject to all legal rights available to the workmen. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.