CWP No. 1391 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1391 of 2007 Date of decision July 30, 2009 Sewa Ram ....... Petitioner Versus The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J(oral). 1. The writ petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court disallowing the claim of the workman for reinstatement and back wages. He claimed that he should be absorbed on the basis that the persons below him in seniority had been given employment. Response by the Management was that there had been an advertisement calling for fresh appointment since he had been employed on temporary basis for a period of 74 days and he could not have been considered for employment. He had not responded to an advertisement which had been made. The Labour Court found that he had not even challenged the order of termination but he was asking only for re-employment and there was no scope for applying the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel appearing for the workman states that the Management itself had not proved that there was any advertisement at the CWP No. 1391 of 2007 2 relevant time and therefore no fault could be attributed to the workman. The reference to the advertisement finds place in the award of the Labour Court, therefore, it could not be taken as introducing a new case. The Management has moved an application for reception of record indicating the advertisement had been issued on 1.5.1991 and 19.8.1991 in 'The Tribune'. The petitioner had not responded to the advertisement and therefore, he cannot complain of his non-selection. Learned counsel for the Management also refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Raja Ram 2004 (8) SCC 164 that held that the case relating to enforcement of settlement that had been advertised and where the workman had not taken advantage of the scheme, he cannot claim that he should be given right of appointment as per terms of the scheme. 2. The matter relates to an issue of appointment of the year 1991 and at this length of time it will be futile to direct the bank to consider the application of the workman and find that he would fulfill the parameters for selection. I am afraid, the claim of the workman has become stale and he would not be entitled to obtain any benefit under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 30, 2009 archana