LPA No.500 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 500 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 4 .7 .2011 Neelam Rani . Appellant Versus . State of Haryana and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr.Davinder Luabna , Advocate for the appellant Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG Hy. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 13.12.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant has already been paid a sum of Rs.2,72,000/- as back wages in pursuance of award dated 12.5.2000 and that CWP No. 3003 of 2008 (Sub Divisional Officer, Arravli Project v. Neelam Rani and another ) against the aforesaid award filed by respondent no.2 had been dismissed on 28.2.2008 (P.4). 2. It is pertinent to notice that vide order passed by the Division Bench, while dismissing the writ petition, respondent no.2 was given the liberty to terminate the services of the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for brevity 'the Act') in case it was proved that the work of Arravli Project had come to an end where the appellant was employed. That view of the Division Bench has attained finality and the appellant has acquisced the directions issued by LPA No.500 of 2011 2 the Division Bench. Even back wages have been accepted by her. Accordingly respondent while placing reliance on those observations have proceeded further and passed order of her termination on the ground that project has come to an end. The order terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the Arravli Project has come to an end was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid termination has been upheld on the ground that in the judgement dated 28.2.2008 (P.4) liberty was granted by the Division Bench to respondent no.2 to terminate the services of the appellant in case the Arravli Project where she was working if it had come to an end. 3. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that full back wages till the date of reinstatement in terms of award dated 12.5.200 have not been paid and the termination of the appellant is illegal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that once a liberty was given to respondent no.2 by Division Bench in judgement dated 28.2.2008 (P.4) to terminate the services of the appellant if the Aravali Project had come to an end then there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of termination is justified because it has been passed on the basis that Aravli Project had been completed. The other argument is that full back wages have not been paid. For that the appellant has ready remedy available under the provisions of Section 33(C) of the Act to approach the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court for an appropriate relief. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application under Section 33 ( C) of the Act to claim arrears of back wages, if any. The appellant may approach LPA No.500 of 2011 3 the appropriate authority within a period of six months from today. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 4.7 .2011 Judge okg