oIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.7859 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.7.2010 Jagtar Singh & others. -----Petitioners. Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anamika, Advocate for the petitioners. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks direction for regularisation of services of the petitioners and for a direction to draw common seniority list of work-charged employees of various circles and divisions. 2. Case of the writ petitioners, who are 160 in number, is that they were employed in Punjab State Tubewell Corporation between 1977 to 1981. Their services were retrenched on 31.10.1987 but the Corporation did not follow the procedure under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”) inasmuch as notice for three months was not served and prior permission of the Government was not obtained. Basis of retrenchment was that they were rendered surplus. According to the petitioners, persons junior to them were still retained in CWP No.7859 of 1987 service and that persons working in Bathinda Circle were junior to them. 3. In the reply filed, stand on behalf of the Corporation is that seniority list of various categories was made and no person junior to the petitioners was retained in service. 4. The writ petition came up for hearing earlier and was dismissed on merits on 30.10.2007 on the ground that the petitioners did not dispute the stand taken in the reply that they were junior most. It was also held that persons employed in a project could not seek direction for regularisation. Thereafter, review application of the petitioner was allowed on 8.8.2008 on the ground that they had filed rejoinder, in which they disputed the stand taken in the reply that they were junior most. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. It is clear that the petition seeks enforcement of rights under the Industrial law. Disputed question of petitioners being senior to the persons retained in service is involved which can be best settled at a forum available under the industrial law. 7. In view of above, this petition is disposed of without prejudice to any other alternative remedy, in accordance with law. July 23, 2010 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ashwani JUDGE 2