1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the award of the industrial tribunal, Patiala. The short ground urged before me by the petitioners Mehta Brothers, Sirhand Mandi, who are doing the business of steal rolling mills is that Amar Singh could not be awarded wages for the period for which he was working else-where after his wrongful dismissal, It is not disputed that Amar Singh was dismissed on 21 February 1959, and he was re-employed by the petitioner firm on 2 December 1959, with continuity of service. However, the matter was referred by the Government to the industrial tribunal and the tribunal has found that he was reinstated with continuity of service and the tribunal granted full wages to Amar Singh for the period of wrongful dismissal. It is in the statement of Amar Singh that he was employed with the National Steel Rolling Mills, Gobindgarh, from 16 March 1959 to 16 December 19569 and was drawing Rs. 115 per mensem as salary from them, whereas the salary which he was drawing from the petitioner firm was Rs. 88 per mensem. Before the tribunal, it was urged that he was not entitled to the salary from the petitioner firm from 16 march 1959 to 16 December 1959 and this contention was brushed aside by the tribunal with these observations:
It is urged that since it is proved that Amar Singh on being discharged had taken up work in some other factory, he bad lost his right to get relief from the respondent. I see no force in the contention as it is impossible to hold that a workman in order to be entitled to the relief of compensation must prove that be remained unemployed or earned nothing during the period of his forced and wrongful unemployment.
2. This is not a case of any unemployment after wrongful dismissal, which would entitle him to compensation, but it is a case where during the period of wrongful dismissal, the respondent was not only usefully employed, but was employed on a very much higher salary. How in this situation, he could be awarded compensation for that period is hard to comprehend. Similar matter came up for decision before the Bombay High Court in Anusuyabai Vithal v. Mehta 1959--II L.L.J. 742 wherein it was held that the compensation in oases of lay-off was payable on the basis of the temporary loss of employment. Here the temporary loss of employment was from 21 February 1959 to 16 March 1959, and not beyond that date. Therefore, the award of wages to the respondent beyond 16 March 1959 is wholly without jurisdiction. The error being patent on the face of the record, I must interfere in the exercise of my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. I accordingly allow this petition and modify the award to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, I would make no order as to costs.