C.W.P. No. 4982 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4982 of 1990 Date of decision: May 17, 2010 Ramesh Kumar and others Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Suresh Monga, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Deepak Girotra, AAG Haryana 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are assailing termination order dated 27.2.1990 (Annexure P-2). 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioners worked with respondent No. 3 (in short 'Confed'). Respondent No. 3 assessed requirement of the employees on 31.3.1989 with a view to improve financial health of the 'Confed'. A decision was taken on 12.12.1989 to assess the requirement of the staff and to retrench surplus employees/workmen as per the over all assessment. The decision was taken to retrench the petitioners and petitioners be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice and they also be paid retrenchment compensation equal to 15 days' wages for each completed year of continuous service or a part thereof in excess of 6 months. Ultimately vide impugned order dated C.W.P. No. 4982 of 1990 2 27.2.1990 (Annexure P-2), petitioners were retrenched and retrenchment compensation in lieu of one month notice period was also paid. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that provision of Section 25(N) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is not applicable. He further states that one month's wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation in accordance with law was paid to the petitioners. His only grievance is that case of the petitioners as per the policy decision taken by 'Confed' should have been referred to the Re-employment Cell of the Government for their absorption and adjustment in other departments which was not done. 5. In view of the fact that provision of Section 25(N) of Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable and in view of the fact that petitioners have received one month's wages in lieu of notice and have also received retrenchment compensation in accordance with law, I am not inclined to interfere with the retrenched impugned order that too after 20 years. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to make representation before the State Government for their adjustment. It goes without saying, if any representation is made, the same shall be decided as per the policy and in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that no opinion on merit on the question of adjustment and re-employment is being expressed by this Court. 7. With the above directions, the petition is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 17.05.2010 JUDGE reena