CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13501 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 02, 2010 M/s Premier Security Services now M/s Premier Sields (P) Ltd., Chandigarh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner management has filed this writ petition to impugn the award dated 22.1.2010 passed by Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, deciding the reference of the dispute in favour of the workman-respondent No.2. The Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the workman-respondent No.2 with continuity of service and has allowed 50% back wages. The petitioner- management would term this award to have been made on flimsy grounds and, thus, illegal, unjust and arbitrary. Respondent No.2-workman was appointed as a Security Guard at Cargo Motors, Zirakpur through the petitioner Security CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13501 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Service Agency. On 11.11.2000, respondent No.2 was transferred from Chandigarh Golf Club to Rallies India, Dera Bassi. As per the allegation, respondent No.2 took the copy of the original movement order, but refused to accept his transfer. Instead of joining at the place of transfer, he filed a complaint, which he followed by serving a demand notice on 16.1.2001. Upon failure of conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication on 24.12.2002. The plea of the petitioner is that it had not terminated the services of the petitioner and even was ready to take respondent No.2 back into service at Dera Bassi itself. This offer was even made before the Conciliation Officer. The petitioner complains that despite this, the award has been passed against the petitioner-management. As per the petitioner, the Labour Court has ignored the admissible evidence led by the petitioner but has relied upon inadmissible evidence adduced by the workman. The petitioner would submit that it is not a case of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination, which plea has not been considered at all by the Labour Court. The petitioner, thus, would submit that even the reference was not maintainable. Similar was the plea raised by the petitioner-management before the Labour Court, which was rejected after consideration. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court is that the workman initially was hesitant to join duties, when an offer of taking him back into service was made by pleading that the petitioner had not terminated his services but ultimately, the respondent was ready to join the duties. This was, however, on a condition that he would CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13501 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: reserve his right to seek legal remedy in regard to payment of back wages for the intervening period. As per the observations made by the Labour Court, the management thereupon backed out and had stated that they did not commit themselves for employment to the respondent. The workman, thus, was found ready to join the duties and accordingly the Labour Court found that the petitioner- management was not ready to take the workman back and offer made was not bonafide. The whole steam out of the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner, thus, will go out that it was not a case of termination or dismissal. The plea as raised, thus, can not be accepted. The award given by the Labour Court is well reasoned and there is no cause or reason to call for interference in the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 02, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE