C.W.P. No. 8783 of 1990 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8783 of 1990 Date of Decision: April 7,2010 The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh .................... Petitioner Versus Roshan Lal and another ........................................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.L.Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1 ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 8783 of 1990 and 11113 of 1990 as both these writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, dated 7.2.1990. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from C.W.P. No. 8783 of 1990 which has been filed by the Management. Breifly the facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was appointed as Field Inspector (Junior) in October 1976 in the Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation (HAFED). The workman served at a number of places and thereafter in May 1980 he was served with a charge-sheet on the ground that he was to take over charge of C.W.P. No. 8783 of 1990 [ 2 ] the cotton from one O.P.Soni, Accountant, at Mandi Dabwali but he did not do so. Another charge levelled against the petitioner was that the petitioner was absent from duty from 2.1.1980 to 8.1.1980 and thirdly that the petitioner embezzled certain amount. An inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which he was found guilty of all the charges. In view of the report of the Inquiry Officer the services of the petitioner were terminated on 9.9.1981. The petitioner filed an application for referring his case to the Labour Court and on reference, the Labour Court vide award dated 7.2.1990 has set aside the termination of the petitioner and has ordered that he be taken back in service without any back-wages. It is this order which has been impugned in these writ petitions by both the Management as well as by the workman. Counsel for the petitioner state that during the pendency of these petitions the workman was taken back in service and has also retired. The Labour Court has passed the impugned award on 7.2.1990 i.e. almost 20 years ago. In these circumstances, it would neither be appropriate to disturb the reinstatement of the workman as ordered by the Labour Court nor the workman would be entitled to claim any back-wages at this belated stage. Resultantly, both the writ petitions i.e. one filed by the Management and the other filed by the workman are dismissed. In case certain amounts are still due to the workman, he may move an application before the Management claiming the same. 7.4.2010 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE