Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989 Date of Decision:15.12.2008 The Dabwali Dhab, Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Dabwali Dhab, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot .....Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been preferred by the Dabwali Dhab, Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Dabwali Dhab under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 7.2.1989 Annexure P.5. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that there was a strike in the year 1981. Several employees whose services were terminated resorted to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, `the Act'). Kashmir Singh- respondent (hereinafter to be referred as `the workman') who was similarly situated also switched over to such proceedings and ultimately, an award was passed by the Labour Court on Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989 -2- 23.1.1984 vide which the termination of his services was held to be illegal and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back-wages. He instead of taking any steps to resume duty, resorted to the coercive measures for execution of the award. By approaching the authorities under the Act, he got a recovery certificate. In pursuance thereof, he was given Rs.8,435/-. Again, he was given another sum of Rs.7572.79 on 25.5.1988. He was requested number of times to join his duty, but he failed to do so. He took up the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court passed the impugned order, which is liable to be quashed in view of the grounds embodied in this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda with due care and circumspection. Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged with great eloquence that the impugned order is liable to be quashed as per the reasons given in the petition. As against this, Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate representing the workman argued that indeed the impugned order has been implemented and now the Society is bent upon to recover the amount mentioned therein unlawfully. I have well considered the rival contentions. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court in the impugned order dated 7.2.1989 has observed as under:- “The workman has deposed that he submitted the joining report copy of which is Ex.W/3 to the employer in May, 1984 Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989 -3- and that the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Moga had written a letter, copy of which is Ex.W/2 to the respondent. This document shows that the employer had failed to implement the award in-spite of several requests of the Labour Inspector Moga and was called by the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer Moga on 24.4.84. The workman deposed that the respondent had appeared before the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer Moga and said that they would consider joining duty to the workman. The dues till the date of the award were recovered by a recovery certificate in 1987 (Ex.W/4, W/5). The workman testified that the employer told him, when he went to the respondent society that they would think over giving him duty. This indicates that the employer did not intend to avail of the services of the workman, when offered. There is no evidence to the contrary. I, therefore, hold that the workman is entitled to wages from the date, he had first offered his services to the employer after the award i.e. 30.5.1984 onwards. The wages have been claimed till July, 1988. At the rate of Rs.487/- p.m., the dues work out to Rs.23895.50ps. The issue is decided accordingly and the application is accepted to that effect with costs quantified in the sum of Rs.100/-.” To my mind, no view contrary to the above findings can be taken as the same are based on documentary evidence apart from law. Civil Writ Petition No.3225 of 1989 -4- Sequelly, I do not consider it proper to interfere therewith in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. As such, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. December 15, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No