Civil Writ Petition No.1941 of 1993 : 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1941 of 1993 The Executive Engineer, Lohand Construction Division, SYL Canal Project (Pb.) Ropar ...Petitioner Vs. Prem Singh & another ...Respondents Present: Ms.Monika Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of four Civil Writ Petition Nos.1941 of 1993 (The Executive Engineer, Lohand Construction Division, SYL, Canal Project (Pb.) Ropar Vs. Prem Singh & another), 1942 of 1993 (The Executive Engineer, Lohand Construction Division, SYL, Canal Project (Pb.) Ropar Vs. Chet Ram & another), 1943 of 1993 (The Executive Engineer, Lohand Construction Division, SYL, Canal Project (Pb.) Ropar Vs. Ram Pal & another) and 1951 of 1993 (The Executive Engineer, Lohand Construction Division, SYL, Canal Project (Pb.) Ropar Vs. Jatinder Singh & another).The facts are Civil Writ Petition No.1941 of 1993 : 2 being taken from CWP No.1941 of 1993. Executive Engineer, Lohand Construction Division, SYL, Canal Project, Ropar has filed this writ petition to challenge the awards given by Labour Court dated 21.3.1991 and 24.7.1992 directing reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages. The writ petition was admitted and the operation of the impugned awards was stayed subject to the provisions of Section 17- B of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per the record, respondent- workman has been receiving the wages at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. He had also filed an application for paying the current wages, which was dismissed for non-prosecution and ultimately the writ petition was directed to be listed for hearing. When the case came up for hearing on 30.6.2010, the court made the following observations:- “The challenge in the present writ petition is to an award which has been passed ex parte. The writ petition was admitted in the year 1993 and has now come up for regular hearing. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-workman was paid the salary last drawn by him, which was approximately to the tune of Rs.600/- per month. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that normally lis in cases should be decided on merit and not on technicalities, the impugned award may not be sustainable. Resultant effect will be that there will be another round of litigation as the case has to be sent back for deciding the reference afresh. Instead, I deem it Civil Writ Petition No.1941 of 1993 : 3 appropriate to direct the counsel for the parties to see if the lis can be amicably settled by award of some compensation to bring the entire issue to the finality. Counsel for the parties may have instructions in this regard by the adjourned date.” Today, the case was taken up for disposal by awarding adequate compensation. The State is prepared to compensate the respondent-workman by paying Rs.10,000/- for completed years of service. This compensation is not acceptable to the counsel appearing for the respondent-workman. He accordingly submits that the respondent-workman would not be averse to remanding of the case since the impugned award was passed ex-parte. The parties to the lis are entitled to adjudication on merits. Since the impugned award was passed ex-parte, there would be need to have adjudication of the list on merits. The prayer is allowed and the impugned award is set-aside. Case is remanded back to the Labour Court, Patiala to decide the same on merits. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 26.8.2010. Since the respondent- workman is suffering because of the fault of the State, which had been proceeded ex-parte, it will be reasonable to compensate the respondent-workman to an extent. Accordingly, State is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent-workman. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. July 29, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE