IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22945 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 16, 2011. The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. .....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-bank is aggrieved by the Award dated 20.4.2011 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur, on an application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), moved by the second respondent. The undisputed facts are that respondent No.2 was employed as a Salesman in the Pathankot Central Co-operative Consumer Store Limited, Pathankot where he was illegally retrenched from the employment. Respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute against the above mentioned Consumer Store which was answered in his favour by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, vide an award dated 8.10.1998/18.11.1998 CWP No.22945 of 2011 [2] (Annexure P-3) to the extent that the said respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. The Pathankot Central Co-operative Consumer Store Limited was later on purchased by the petitioner-bank in an open auction held pursuant to an order of winding up passed under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Since the respondent-workman was not paid all the consequential monetary benefits arising from the Award dated 18.11.1998 passed in his favour by the Labour Court, he moved an application under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Act in which the petitioner-bank through its Manager was also impleaded as a party-respondent. The Labour Court, vide the impugned Award dated 20.4.2011 has allowed the application to the extent that the petitioner bank, having stepped into the shoes of his previous employer, has been directed to make 50% payment of salary to respondent No.2 with effect from the date of demand notice dated 21.2.1990 till the Consumer Store was wound up on 23.6.1994, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. On a query, it is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner-bank that the total amount of arrears payable to respondent No.2 alongwith interest in terms of the impugned Award comes to Rs.44,058/-, whereas, if paid without interest, it comes to Rs.22,737/-. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, no interference by this Court in CWP No.22945 of 2011 [3] exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution, is called for in the impugned Award. I say so for the reason that the petitioner-bank having acquired all the assets of the Consumer Store by purchasing the same in an open auction, is deemed to have substituted and/or stepped into the shoes of the said Store. In legal parlance, the petitioner-bank replaced the previous employer of respondent No.2. The petitioner-bank while taking over the assets of the Consumer Store cannot escape from the liability, if any, suffered by said Store. Learned counsel for the petitioner, though has raised one or two contentious issues which would ordinarily require further consideration by this Court but keeping in view the total amount payable to respondent No.2 alongwith interest and the cost of litigation now-a-days, I am not inclined to call upon him to give effective answers to those issues. Dismissed. December 16, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE