IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1365 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: December 11, 2009. Ram Kishan ...Petitioner(s) v. A.K. Gupta ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.C. Babbar, Advocate, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): CM No.28935-CII of 2009 Civil Misc. application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Documents are taken on record. COCP No.1387 of 2008 As per the averments made in this petition, vide order dated 13.6.2008, the management had agreed to provide work to the workman with the contractor as per the policy of the Government and on the basis of this agreement, the Reference was returned to the Government, as settled in Lok Adalat. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that in spite of the aforesaid award in his favour, the respondents have failed to provide him the work. In response to the show cause notice, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it has been submitted that the respondent had agreed before the Tribunal only to persuade the contractor to get the workman engaged on construction work, other than routine maintenance work. It is the further case of the respondent that the respondents have already moved an application for modification/correction in the impugned award on the basis of the record of the Tribunal. COCP No.1365 of 2008 -2- Without going into merits of this petition at this stage, I deem it appropriate to direct the parties to get the aforesaid application for modification of the impugned award decided. It is needless to say that after the decision of the aforesaid application, the parties shall be at liberty to seek their remedy in accordance with law. Disposed of. Rule discharged. December 11, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge