IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16033 of 2000(O&M) Date of Decision : November 16, 2011. Arjay Apparel Industries Limited and another .....Petitioners versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.C.S.Pasricha, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Raj Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This writ petition at the instance of the petitioner-management seeks quashing of the award dated 7.2.2000 (Annexured P-11) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda directing reinstatement of respondent No.2 in service with full back wages. The record reveals that on 20.11.2001 the management was directed to pay wages last drawn, from the date of the filing of the writ petition till payment is made to the respondent-workman. The management was further directed to continue making payments of the monthly wages to the workman. The petitioner-management has moved an application bearing C.M.No.2288 of 2010 seeking modification of the previous order dated CWP No.16033 of 2000(O&M) [2] 20.11.2001 regarding payment of back wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the plea that the respondent-workman was meanwhile due for retirement. This Court accordingly observed that in this background, the main case could be disposed of. On 26.10.2010, learned counsel for the management was directed to calculate the due amount payable to the workman if he was to be reinstated in service alongwith back wages and the future wages to be drawn till his superannuation. The petitioner-management meanwhile undertook this exercise and vide letter dated 25.11.2010 addressed to its counsel, informed that the workman has been paid the entire dues except an amount of Rs.6591/- assuming that he was reinstated in service. The respondent-workman has admittedly attained the age of superannuation. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the impugned award and dispose of this writ petition as having become infructuous with a direction to the petitioner-management that balance amount of Rs.6591/- be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of three months. No other benefit, if any as a consequence to the impugned award, shall be paid to the workman except the said amount of Rs.6591/- as directed above. Similarly, the workman shall be entitled to the amount(s) deposited by the petitioner- management towards provident fund or other statutory liabilities toward him. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. November 16, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE