CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20759 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 06,2010 Laxmi Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., 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. Devinder Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The Labour Court has partly allowed the reference in favour of the workman primarily on three grounds. It was found that subsistence allowance was not paid till the workman approached the Assistant Labour Inspector for payment of subsistence allowance. Once the workman was denied subsistence allowance, her rights to defend herself certainly were put to prejudice. Finding of fact is that the workman was denied fair opportunity to defend herself. She was also denied assistance of a co-worker. The Labour Court, in my view, was totally unjustified in denying the reinstatement after finding that enquiry was unfair. Perhaps, the reinstatement was denied as the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20759 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: petitioner concern has closed down. Only full back wages were allowed to the workman. The back wages have not been allowed as back wages but by a way of compensation. The submission that the back wages could be allowed only if the workman was reinstated, therefore, is not justified. There is no justification made out for interference in the impugned award. If there is any justification, it should be for ordering the reinstatement of the workman, which has been denied to her for the reason as stated above. The writ petition, thus, filed on behalf of the management is dismissed. December 06, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE