Civil Writ Petition No. 6703 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6703 of 2008 Date of decision: April 24, 2008 Udai Singh … Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA , J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Udai Singh, who was employed with respondent No.2 (management) praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the impugned award dated 05.10.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Labour Court, Gurgaon be quashed as the management has violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and was in no way justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. Petitioner has relied upon his appointment letter (Annexure P-1) dated 25.08.1990 to urge that he was appointed as D.G. Operator on the basic salary of Rs.1200/- per month. In demand notice Civil Writ Petition No. 6703 of 2008 2 (Annexure P-2), it has been stated that he had joined the respondent- management on 15.02.1990 and has worked continuously upto 07.04.1994. His last drawn salary was Rs.1700/- per month and wrongly his services have been terminated, to similar effect claim statement (Annexure P-3) has been filed by the petitioner-workman before the Labour Court. In the written statement, it was submitted that on account of surplus workers i.e. D.G. Operators, by making payment of compensation, petitioner-workman was relieved on 01.04.1994. Learned Labour Court in the impugned award (Annexure P-5) has returned a finding of fact that the post of D.G. Set Operator had become surplus, which resulted into the retrenchment of services of the petitioner and all the formalities envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with. In the present writ petition, Mr. Ashok Tyagi appearing for the petitioner has stated that the amount of retrenchment was not paid at the time of retrenchment and if subsequently the amount is paid, violation of Section 25-F of the Act cannot be cured. We are afraid, this contention of the petitioner-workman cannot be accepted. In Hoshiarpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, 2005(1) Recent Service Judgments 222, a judgment of this Court, which was rendered by one of us (Ashutosh Mohunta, J.), it was held that delay in payment of compensation cannot be considered as violation of Section 25 of the Act. A similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in Parmod Jha and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1872. Civil Writ Petition No. 6703 of 2008 3 In view of the finding of fact returned by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner-workman was declared surplus and retrenchment amount was paid and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has been complied with, no interference is called for and present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE April 24, 2008 rps