C.W.P No.7058 of 1992 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : April 19, 2011 1. C.W.P No.7058 of 1992 (O&M) Secretary, HSEB, Panchkula & Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & Another 2. C.W.P No.7059 of 1992 (O&M) Secretary, HSEB, Panchkula & Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & Another *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. O.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.7058 and 7059 of 1992, as common questions of facts and law are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CWP No.7058 of 1992. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 6.2.1992 whereby termination of the services of respondent No.2 were held to be illegal being in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 2.6.1992, the writ petition was admitted and the operation of the C.W.P No.7058 of 1992 (O&M) ::2:: impugned Award was stayed subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for respondents-workmen has stated that respondents- workmen were taken in service and have been regularized. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the writ petition was filed in the year 1992 and that he has no knowledge about the above fact. However, keeping in view the categoric statement of counsel for respondents/workmen, I deem it appropriate to dismiss these writ petitions at this stage with liberty to the petitioners to move an application for restoration in case it is found that the factual assertion of counsel for respondents/workmen is incorrect. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 19, 2011. JUDGE `kk'