IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4315 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.11.2011 Sh. Mohinder Dass and others ...Petitioners versus Management of M/s. Satish & Ish (Pvt) Ltd. Sarna, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur (Punjab), and another. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. There is no representation for the petitioners. The counsel for the 1st respondent is present. The administrative branch of this Court has identified the above case among other cases as the oldest and it is posted it before this Court for disposal in accordance with law. I, therefore, proceed to examine the case on the basis of records available and with the assistance of the counsel for the 1st respondent. Civil Writ Petition No.4315 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 - 2. The writ petition contained a challenge to the order of the Labour Court declining the petitioner's request for reemployment on the ground that the initial termination of service occurred when the Company was closed and on reopening by the direction of the Company Court, the persons were taken as on fresh appointment basis. The counsel states that amongst the petitioners 2, 5, 16 and 19 have already died. Petitioners 19 and 20 were at no time the employees on the roll of Company. The other petitioners would have been superannuated by now and the question of reemploying them cannot, therefore, arise. There is no scope for entertaining any monetary benefits that could have accrued to them for the period when they have not also worked which was pursuant to the orders of a competent Labour Court. I will not think therefore it is an essential to go into the issue of whether any of the surviving petitioners is entitled to reemployment. 3. The petition has become infructuous under the above circumstances and it is dismissed as such. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 23.11.2011 sanjeev