IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6238 of 2009 Date of decision : 9.5.2011 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. B.N.Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award of the Labour Court, Ludhiana dated 17.3.2004 as also the order dated 4.6.2008. The principal cause of grievance of the petitioner is that award Annexure P-6 came into existence on 17.3.2004 on which date the petitioner could not appear and the authorised representative of the petitioner pleaded no instructions and consequently noticing that there was no evidence on behalf of the workman, the reference was answered against him. An application for deciding the reference on merits was filed by the petitioner which has since been declined by C.W.P.No.6238 of 2009 -2- virtue of the order dated 4.6.2008. The prayer made in the petition is resisted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 on the ground that the application moved by the petitioner for deciding the reference afresh on merits was clearly not maintainable, as once the award had been passed on merits of the case, the Labour Court had become functus officio and the subsequent application for deciding the reference on merits was not maintainable. It is thus contended that the order had been passed in the year 2004 determining the reference, the instant writ petition is hit by delay and latches. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice in the instant case. There is indeed no doubt that after the award had come into existence, the Labour Court had become functus officio and the remedy of the petitioner was to assail the said award under the law. Rather, he filed an application for deciding the reference on merits afresh which was declined appropriately by the Labour Court on 4.6.2008. The petitioner took recourse to a remedy which was not available to him under the law. But he has been prejudiced on account of the fact that merely two opportunities were afforded to him before the reference was determined by the Labour Court. It is on 9.3.2004 that cross-examination of the witness of the management was deferred for 17.3.2004 on which date the petitioner was not present and his authorised representative pleaded no instructions and on the said date itself the reference was determined against the petitioner. C.W.P.No.6238 of 2009 -3- For the reason that there was no tangible laxity on the part of the petitioner in the first instant and merely two dates spread over a span of 8 days had been afforded to him, I am of the opinion that the award of the Labour Court resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. In this view of the matter, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for decision afresh. However, while deciding the reference the Labour Court in the eventuality of the petitioner being found entitled to some relief, may discount the period which has been spent by the petitioner in availing a wrong remedy under the law and subsequent proceedings before this Court while evaluating such relief to be granted or to be denied to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. 9.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss