CWP No. 5728 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5728 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.03.2010 Bhagwan Singh son of Tulsi Ram ...... PETITIONER VERSUS The Managing Director, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Naresh S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide which the reference was answered against the workman. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court was initially in favour of the workman, which was upheld by this Court. Thereafter, an SLP was preferred by the respondents- Management before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the workman would be entitled to make a representation to the Corporation with a plea that some junior CWP No. 5728 of 2009 2 persons were appointed or retained by the respondents in service who were terminated along with the petitioner. This order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.07.1997 (Annexure P-5). In pursuance of the said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner preferred a representation but the said representation was rejected by the Corporation leading to the demand having been raised by the workman which culminated into a reference which came to be decided by the Labour Court vide Award dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure P-12), which is under challenge in the present writ petition. He contends that Ashok Kumar, who is junior to the petitioner, has been retained in service by the respondent- Corporation and, therefore, the right, which was conferred on the petitioner vide judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been violated by the respondents. He contends that Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act having been violated, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. He, on this basis, prays that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to the benefits as per his demand. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 states that no person junior to the petitioner has been retained in service. Sh. Ashok Kumar, who although is junior to the petitioner yet he has been retained in service by the Management not on its own accord but in compliance with the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon dated 25.04.1994. The respondent-Corporation had preferred CWP No. 11344 of 1994 titled as Haryana Seeds Development Corporation vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ashok Kumar, which is pending decision before this Court. No stay on reinstatement of the workman was granted nor the operation of the Award was stayed leading to the CWP No. 5728 of 2009 3 reinstatement of Sh. Ashok Kumar. Sh. Ashok Kumar is, therefore, continuing in service because of an Award being in his favour. He contends that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner thus cannot be accepted that Ashok Kumar, who is junior to the petitioner, has been retained in service by the respondents on their own accord. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that no person junior to the petitioner-workman has been retained in service. As regards Sh. Ashok Kumar, a specific stand of the Management is that in the light of the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 25.04.1994, which Award was challenged by the respondents-Management in this Court in CWP No. 11344 of 1994, Sh. Ashok Kumar has been retained in service. Since no stay of the Award or reinstatement of Ashok Kumar-workman was granted by this Court, the Management was left with no option but to take him back in service. He is continuing in service because of the Award passed in his favour and the writ is still pending before this Court for final disposal. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner by filing a replication. The reason assigned by the respondents for retaining Ashok Kumar in service is fully justified and in any case, he has not been retained by the Management on their own accord but only in compliance with the Award passed by the Labour Court, which is in his favour. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 08, 2010 pj