LPA No.75/2008 in 1 CM No.9159/2004 in CWP No.5094/2000. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.75/2008 IN CM No.9159/2004 in CWP No.5094/2000. Date of Decision:11.4.2008 District Engineering Workers Union ............Appellant through Mr.Vivek Bhandari,Advocate. v. State of Punjab and others. .........Respondents. Through Mr.ML Sarin,Senior Advocate with Mr.Hemant Sarin,Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. ***** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** VIJENDER JAIN,CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 5.3.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in CM 9159 of 2004 vide which respondent no.4 has been permitted to sell plant and machinery by modifying the earlier stay granted vide order dated 17.10.2000. The operative part of the order dated 5.3.2008 reads as under:- “In view of the aforementioned discussion, permission is granted to respondent no.4 to sell the LPA No.75/2008 in 2 CM No.9159/2004 in CWP No.5094/2000. plant and machinery. Respondent no.4 is, however, restrained from selling the land over which the factory is situated i.e. In village Jitwal Kalan, Near Kup Railway Station, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Ludhiana, measuring 15.63 acres. Respondent no.4 is further restrained from selling or creating any encumbrance on the 187 flats which are situated within the factory premises. CM disposed of accordingly.” When the appeal came up for hearing on 24.3.2008 learned counsel appearing for the appellant very fairly contended that he was interested only in protecting the amount of wages of workmen which according to his calculation is amounting to Rs.11.66 crores. However, Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents disputed the said amount on the ground that no computation/ determination has been made as yet and they are not entitled to any wages on the basis of settlement already having arrived at. Learned Single Judge has already kept the matter for hearing on 20.5.2008 for final disposal. Mr. Sarin has also contended that even if the plant and machinery is sold, then also the value of the land measuring 15.69 acres with 187 flats constructed thereon, the detail of which has been given in the impugned order, would safeguard the interest of the workers. Learned counsel for the appellant, at that stage, stated that no valuation report of the land or the flats constructed thereon has been placed on record. Pursuant to his objection, LPA No.75/2008 in 3 CM No.9159/2004 in CWP No.5094/2000. we directed Mr.Sarin to place the valuation report on the record. Mr. Sarin has placed on record the valuation report of the Staff Housing Colony and the land and the total value assessed is Rs.12,30,38,872/-. Learned counsel for the appellant says that the valuation report is not correct. We cannot appreciate this stand of the appellant. On the last date of hearing he has stated that his only objection was that no valuation report was before the learned Single Judge. It will be for the learned Single Judge to pass appropriate orders, at the time of final disposal of the matter taking into consideration the valuation report and any objection of the appellant in this regard. Suffice it to say that no workman or association of workmen can be permitted under the garb of settlement of their disputes to render the total plant and machinery redundant. Under stay order more than 10 years have passed. Plant and machinery lost its value on account of idleness or passage of time. The interest of the workmen has been safeguarded by the learned Single Judge by restraining the respondents from alienating the land in question. In the light of the voluminous record which has been filed by the respondents showing that payment to all the workmen has been made. We have our own doubt about the claims of the workmen. In any event of the matter, we are not expressing any opinion as it would be for the learned Single Judge to decide the matter after hearing the parties on this point. Learned counsel for the appellant says that appeal may be disposed of as he will address the arguments regarding valuation report submitted by respondent no.4 before the learned Single Judge.Ordered LPA No.75/2008 in 4 CM No.9159/2004 in CWP No.5094/2000. accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE April 11,2008 (JASWANT SINGH) RC/joshi JUDGE