L.P.A. No.1370 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1370 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.10.2010 Punjab State Electricity Board, Sangrur .....Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer Labour and Industrial Court, Patiala and another. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI -.- Present: Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhraj Singh Brar, Advocate for the Caveator/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? M.M. KUMAR J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges order 8.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The workman-respondent had worked for six months with L.P.A. No.1370 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the appellant-Board on the post of Assistant Line Man. His services were illegally terminated on 3.11.1985 without any notice or charge- sheet. He sought a reference claiming reinstatement with full back- wages. The learned Labour Court in its Award dated 7.4.1992 has recorded a categorical finding that the termination of workman- respondent was passed on a report of the Sports Officer showing that his work and conduct was unsatisfactory which have not been produced into evidence before the learned Labour Court. Accordingly, it was held that termination of the services of the workman-respondent was stigmatic. The learned Single Judge found that the workman-respondent could have been removed for unsatisfactory work after atleast seeking his explanation. It has been found that there was no material to indicate that the work and conduct of the workman was unsatisfactory in any manner. The learned Single Judge has also upheld the finding of the learned Labour Court that the termination of the workman-respondent was actuated by mala fide. 3. After the award passed by the learned Labour Court on 7.4.1992, the appellant filed CWP No.10976 of 1992 which was admitted subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, on the basis of internal correspondence of Board, the workman-respondent was reinstated into service in compliance of the award passed by the learned Labour Court in the year 1992. Before the learned Single Judge, an affidavit dated 24.3.2010 was filed by the Additional Superintendent, Engineer, Distribution Division, PSEB, Sangrur showing that the work and L.P.A. No.1370 of 2010 (O&M) -3- conduct of the workman-respondent from the date of his reinstatement upto the date of filing of the affidavit was satisfactory and there was no adverse remarks against him during the period he had worked with the appellant-Board. Once the appellant-Board itself has taken the petitioner back in service and the workman- respondent is found to be working to its satisfaction, then there is hardly any room for upsetting the aforesaid arrangements. 4. The appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M. Kumar ) Judge ( Ritu Bahri ) October 15, 2010 Judge ashish