IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12138 of 2006 (O/M). Date of Decision : March 25, 2010. Executive Engineer, H.S.A.M.B., New Grain Market, G.T. Road, Karnal. ...... Petitioner . Versus. Sachin son of Sh. Rattan Lal, resident of D.F.-377, Bhatto Mohalla, Jundla Gate, Karnal, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate, for, Mr. Durgesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the impugned Award dated 01.12.2005 (Annexure-P-1), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), vide which the reference had been answered in favour of respondent No. 1/Workman (hereinafter referred to as “the Workman”), holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and full back wages from the date of demand notice, i.e., 10.10.2000. Counsel for the petitioner/Management (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) contends that the appointment of the Workman as a Typist was not in consonance with the statutory Rules and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He on this basis contends that the Workman cannot be reinstated in service and the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot thus be sustained. His further contention is that the Workman was not an employee of the Management and thus the Labour C.W.P. No. 12138 of 2006. -2- Court had erred in giving a finding that the Workman was continuously working as a Typist with the Management. On these two grounds, he contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. On the other hand, counsel for the Workman submits that on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the Workman was appointed by the Management and he was working with the Management as a Typist continuously when his services were terminated. A specific finding has also been recorded by the Labour Court that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and thus the Award passed by the Labour Court, directing the reinstatement of the Workman in service with continuity thereof and full back wages from the date of demand notice is fully justified. As regards the contention raised by counsel for the Management with regard to the appointment being de hors the statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, counsel for the Workman submits that the plea was never taken before the Labour Court either in the pleadings, i.e., written statement filed to the claim statement or any evidence led in support of this contention nor was this point argued before the Labour Court. The Labour Court had no occasion to consider the same and gave a finding to the same. This plea, thus, cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, while availing of the remedy of writ petition, which is in the nature of restricted jurisdiction, where the Award is under challenge and the illegality or irregularity of the same is under consideration of this Court. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 7227 of 2009, titled as Executive Engineer, National Highway, PWD (B/R), Provisional Division No. 3 C.W.P. No. 12138 of 2006. -3- Branch, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak Versus Sh. Suresh and another, decided on 02.03.2010, in support of this contention. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The first contention of counsel for the Management with regard to his submission that the appointment of the Workman was de hors the statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, suffice it to say that this very question has been duly considered in detail by this Court and has held that the plea cannot be raised for the first time before the High Court while preferring a writ petition, when such a plea was neither taken before the Labour Court in its pleadings nor any evidence led or submissions made in this regard before the Labour Court. The said decision in the case of Executive Engineer, National Highway (supra), therefore, covers the arguments, which have been raised by counsel for the Management and thus stands rejected. With regard to the contention of counsel for the Management that the Workman was not a employee of the Management and, therefore, the Award could not have been passed, suffice it to say that the Labour Court had in detail referred to the documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of the Workman, which when taken into consideration leaves no manner of doubt that the Workman was employed by the petitioner/Management and had been working with it. Finding no merits in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 25, 2010. sjks.