IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3700 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 09.03.2009 Jaswant Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Punjab Tube Well Corporation Limited ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Labour Court, Amritsar, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained as the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that during the pendency of the civil suit, the workmen were assigned the work of T-mate on the basis of the option given by the said workmen who had been rendered surplus along with the petitioner. He contends that those workmen are still continuing whereas the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on the ground that the civil suit filed by him stands dismissed by the Civil Court and also the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. I have gone through the impugned award passed by the Labour Court as well as the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the C.W.P.No.3700 of 2009 -2- petitioner. The services of the petitioner-workman were retrenched vide notice dated 15.5.1987. Thereafter, the workman filed Civil Suit No.916 dated 25.5.1987 challenging the said notice before the Civil Court. An interim order in favour of the workman was granted and the workman continued in service with the respondents. The civil suit came to be dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1995, holding therein that there is no illegality in the notice of retrenchment as the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been duly complied with by the respondents. The contention of the workman having been rejected by the Civil Court the workman preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar. In view of the findings given by the Labour Court and the dismissal of the suit and the appeal preferred by the workman, the services of the workman were terminated. The findings as recorded by the Civil Court are binding upon the Labour Court and accordingly, with the passing of order of termination by the Competent Authority after the dismissal of the civil suit and the appeal of the workman, the Labour Court had no option but to follow the findings given by the Civil Court. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner-workman that the petitioner-workman was assigned the work of T-Mate along with other employees who had been declared surplus, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the workman was all through in service with the respondents due to the stay granted in his favour. He was never out of service and, therefore, the question of putting him back in service along C.W.P.No.3700 of 2009 -3- with other surplus employees cannot be accepted. No evidence whatsoever has been brought on record which would show that on an option called for from the surplus employees, as per letter dated 22.8.1991 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner-workman had also opted for the same and he was accordingly assigned the duties. The stand of the petitioner-workman all through, after issuance of letter dated 22.8.1991 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of which he claims that the surplus employee were called upon to give their willingness to join in the tubewell construction division, was that the notice of retrenchment was firstly not in accordance with law and, therefore, there was no termination in the eyes of law and further on the date when such notice was issued, the workman was in service and so, there was no question of an option being given by the petitioner-workman or he being called upon to join duties. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any document either calling upon his option or he giving an option which was accepted by the respondent-Management. In this view of the matter, the claim as put-forth by the petitioner-workman cannot be accepted in the light of the findings given by the Civil Court, as affirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court, with regard to his notice of retrenchment which had been challenged by the workman. There is no illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. March 09, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE