IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11646 of 2000 Date of decision:04.09.2009 Municipal Council, Pathankot through its Executive Officer. ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate, for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2 ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed under Section 33-C(2) in an application where the workman complained that although he was a regular employee he had not been paid wages and sought for wages. The management contested the claim of the workman by pointing out that there had been actually a reference to the Labour Court for an adjudication whether the workman Mr.Prem Kumar was entitled to be regularized and made permanent. In the same reference, there were claims of other workmen namely Sanjay Kumar and Smt. Puro Devi. The above said two persons appeared to have obtained consideration in their respective claims in their favour by the management for Civil Writ Petition No.11646 of 2000 - 2 - appointment on compassionate basis. The workman Prem Kumar did not have any such specific proceedings or order in his favour, but he went along with the other two for withdrawal stating that the matter had been compromised. The respondents' counsel appearing for the management also made a statement that the matter had been compromised. Ultimately it turned out that there was no adjudication relating to the claim of the workman Prem Kumar for regularization and being made permanent. 2. The claim under Section 33-C(2) was on the basis that the statement made on behalf of the management that the matter had been compromised must mean that the reference was also answered in his favour that he was regularized and made permanent. The assumption is rather strange that the withdrawal from the proceedings seeking for no direction from the Labour Court must be understood by the workman to mean that the award had been passed in his favour. The learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased workman, contended that the statement given by the counsel for the management before the Labour Court that there was no longer any dispute, and this aspect, according to the learned counsel, ought to mean that the claim of the workman was accepted. When an award is one of non-consideration of the issue whether the workman was entitled to regularization and when the workman had not obtained to himself any written order from the management admitting his claim before he reported compromise, he shall only have himself to blame and cannot taken advantage of a so-called admission by the counsel for the management that the matter had been compromised. The benefit of compromise, if it were to be taken to Civil Writ Petition No.11646 of 2000 - 3 - mean that the workman had been regularized, it should be available in black and white for the workman through some proceedings. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the workman that the workman should be treated as regularized is, in my view, a non-sequeter. I am informed that the workman was paid the fixed wages till he died and the claim petition itself was for a computation on regular scales if he had been regularized. The order passed by the Labour Court treating the workman as regularized is clearly erroneous and liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be, however, no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 04.09.2009 sanjeev