IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 634 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 12, 2010 Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited …Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited is in appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 19.11.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 8669 of 1993. Learned Single Judge has given a categorical finding that the appellant-management had adopted the device of contract by employing the workman-respondent No. 2 for a specific period of engagement, which was in fact an un-fair labour practice, especially when the workman-respondent No. 2 had completed more than 240 days of continuous service. The award of the Labour Court has accordingly been affirmed holding that there was no plea taken by the appellant-management that no work was available or that any regular appointment had been made which necessitated termination of the services of the workman-respondent No. 2. The excuse of contractual appointment to LPA No. 634 of 2010 (O&M) bring the case within the exception created by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and to exclude the workman-respondent No. 2 from the benefit of Section 25-F was held to be an unfair labour practice. Accordingly, the workman-respondent No. 2 was reinstated with continuity of service by restricting the payment of back wages to 70%. We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and find that in cases where unfair labour practice has been committed by the management and provisions of Section 2(oo) of the Act have been pleaded to avoid compliance of Section 25-F, the relief of reinstatement with reduced back wages and continuity in service cannot be held to be impermissible. We find no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and uphold the same. The appeal does not merit admission. The same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 12, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2