Civil Writ Petition No. 14462 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14462 of 2010 Date of decision:-07.09.2011 Gurmel Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.6.2010 (Annexure P-11) whereby the Assistant Labour Commissioner has rejected the demand notice. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.5 was appointed as salesman on consolidated salary of Rs.2440/- without following the procedure as contemplated in Punjab State Co-operative Agriculture Service Societies Service Rules, 1997. The petitioner had applied for this post but he was not considered. In Writ Petition No.1985 of 2007 filed by one Major Singh, challenged the selection of respondent No.5 and a direction was given to decide the representation by passing a speaking order by this Court on 08.02.2007 (Annexure P-2). The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies conducted an inquiry and suspended the Committee of the Civil Writ Petition No. 14462 of 2010 -2- respondent society under Section 27(2) of the Punjab Co-op. Societies Act, 1961 vide order dated 25.4.2007 (Annexure P-4). The revision filed against this order was dismissed by the Secretary, Co-op. Societies on 13.5.2008 (Annexure P-7). Respondent No.5 was removed from service vide Resolution dated 13.6.2008 (Annexure P- 8). Respondent No.5 approached through a reference and the same was sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bathinda under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 15.1.2009 before respondent No.1. Before the Labour Court, the statement was made that a compromise has been effected between the workman and respondent-Society. Vide order dated 12.5.2009 (Annexure P-9) the Labour Court has disposed of the reference by accepting the compromise and that the workman was ready to join the work with the management on initial pay with continuity of service. The workman had agreed to relinquish back-wages. This order of the Labour Court was challenged by the petitioner. While dismissing the petition liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute. Thereafter, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute as sought for reference and on 11.6.2010 the demand notice was rejected as the same was not covered under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. No grounds to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. September 07, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE