L.P.A. No.1110 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1110 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.11.2011 Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited ....... Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court and another ....... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina * * * * Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? RAJIV NARAIN RAINA J. 1. The Haryana Dairy Development Corporative Federation Limited is in appeal before this Court under Clause X of the Letters Patent, assailing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2010 rendered in C.W.P. No. 3015 of 1992, upholding the award of Labour Court granting reinstatement but denying back wages for the period when the respondent-workman remained out of service i.e. 08.06.1982 to 05.03.1984 but was held entitled to the benefit of temporary service and other consequential benefits from L.P.A. No.1110 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - June 1982 onwards. The Award is dated 11.10.1991. 2. It may not be necessary to recount the facts in detail in the present appeal. It is beyond cavil that the respondent-workman served the Board from August 1981 to June 1982 and then again from July 1982 to April 1983 and then again from October 1983 to March 1984. When the services of the 2nd respondent were brought to an end, there had been no compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'), which was mandatory. 3. The unique feature of the present case is that despite the termination and award of reinstatement during the pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court from 1992 onwards, the appellant Board has continued to take work from the respondent in lieu of payment of last drawn wages under 17B of the Act. After 18 years, it would be totally inequitable, unfair and unjust to entertain the thought of driving the respondent out of service. The learned Single Judge has factored this humanitarian issue to uphold the Award of the Labour Court and that too not without upholding the claim for reinstatement on the merits of the case. 4. When the learned Single Judge had asked learned counsel for the Board to take instructions from his client on the issue of maintaining status quo regarding the continued employment, the Board should have shown more grace and put an end to the matter there. 5. We find no error of jurisdiction or in the exercise of discretion by both the Labour Court and learned Single Judge and are of the considered view that this appeal does not merit admission. L.P.A. No.1110 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. 7. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no orders are required to be passed on the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeal. ( M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 29.11.2011 JUDGE sarita