CWP No. 14689 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14689 1993 Date of decision August 21, 2009 Manjit Singh ....... Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for Mr. Snjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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. By the impugned award, the Labour Court found that the reference was bad in view of the fact that no notice had been given to the Management before the reference had been made. Over a point of fact relating to the engagement of the workman, the Labour Court found that the workman had completed 240 days of service and the termination had been effected without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that earlier he had raised an industrial dispute and the Management had also been served with notice. The conciliation failed but however, the government did not make any reference. An application had been filed by the workman for review in decision. The Government choose CWP No. 14689 1993 2 to take the decision to refer the matter. According to him it is not as if a reference was made without any form of notice to the Management but a case where the Management had been served with notice but only where the Government was reconsidering the issue of a reference, notice had not again been sent. According to him, the decision to refer itself need not be communicated to any party before the actual reference is made. I am of the view that there is a difference between a reference made after giving both parties opportunities to come a negotiating table and on failure to reach conciliation, a reference is made and another, where on a mere demand notice by the workman, a reference is made without serving any form of notice to the Management for an attempt of conciliation. It is only for the latter situation that there should be really a cause for complaint on grounds of prejudice. In this case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only the ultimate decision-making of the Government for a reference on a review of its decision that went without notice. Indeed, in such a case, notice was not necessary. If at all such a notice were still to be issued on them, there was no prejudice for the Management, for it had already known the stand of the workman and it had also expressed its situation before the Conciliation Officer. The matter was very much at large when the dispute was referred to the Labour Court and in my view, the observation of the Labour Court that the reference was vitiated is not justified. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court had already given a finding that there was violation of Section 25-F and the Management had not even filed a writ petition challenging such a finding. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would state that the ultimate award was one of dismissal and therefore the Management can not be said to be an aggrieved person to challenge the same. It was possible in law to convass the correctness of the ultimate CWP No. 14689 1993 3 decision but still urge that one of the grounds held against it was not rightly decided. I agree that such a right to challenge a finding is possible even without filing an independent writ petition. 4. Even the facts bear out that the workman had been in employment from February 1986 to 15.3.1987 although there is still some doubt as to when the workman actually entered the service. According to him, the workman had been employed from February, 1985 that there has been a finding that the workman had completed 240 days prior to the date of termination on 15.3.1987. It cannot be held to be a wrong finding, for all that the Management was contending for was, they had not terminated the service but the workman had abandoned the same. As regards the actual number of days of work, there was no contra evidence placed and the finding of the Labour Court as regards the violation of Section 25-F cannot be a point to challenge. 5. Even this finding that the workman had been terminated from service without compliance of Section 25-F, I do not think it is a fit case to direct reinstatement. The termination as contended by the workman had been made on 15.3.1987 and having regard to the long passage of time of more than two decades for a person who was an electrician, he could have secured proper employment elsewhere. It shall not be necessary to direct reinstatement into a public service. In my view, The appropriate compensation in the case of illegal termination shall be Rs. 50,000/-. the amount shall be paid within a period of six weeks failing which the amount shall bear interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 6. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 21, 2009 archana