IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6962 of 2001 Date of Decision:- 07.04.2010 Gurmit Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashwani Parashar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on daily wages with the respondent-Bank vide order dated 5.4.1991(Annexure P-1). His services were retrenched vide order dated 21.9.1993 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that he had been rendered surplus and accordingly retrenchment compensation was paid to him. The petitioner-workman raised a demand dated 28.9.1993 wherein a specific stand was taken that persons junior to him have been retained in service while his services have been declared as surplus. On this basic ground, he challenged his termination. Since the reconciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred to the Labour court for adjudication. The Labour Court passed an Award dated 29.5.2000 (Annexure P-9) answering the reference against the workman thereby dismissing his claim. Counsel for the petitioner-workman further contends that the C.W.P.No.6962 of 2001 -2- services of one Balwinder Singh, who was similarly appointed with the respondent-Bank as a Peon on daily wages on 8.4.1991, which obviously is a date which is after the appointment of the petitioner i.e. 5.4.1991 and, thus, was junior to the petitioner, were similarly terminated on the ground of having been rendered surplus vide a similarly worded order dated 29.9.1993. Said Balwinder Singh, like the present petitioner, also submitted a demand that juniors to him have been retained and an Award was also passed against him which was challenged by him by way of C.W.P.No.7176 of 1999. The said writ petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.8.2000 (Annexure P-10). He contends that the case of the petitioner is covered by the said judgment on all fours and he is in a better position since he was senior to afore-said Balwinder Singh, who was the petitioner in C.W.P.No.7176 of 1999. He contends that this Court vide the said order held that persons junior to the petitioner were retained in service and, thus, retrenchment of the workman on the ground of being rendered surplus was held to be bad, directing reinstatement of the workman in service with continuity thereof with full back wages from the date of demand notice. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.1122 of 2001 was preferred by the Ferozepur Central Cooperative Bank Limited and others (respondent- Management herein) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which came to be decided on 13.8.2001 whereby the order passed by the High Court was upheld except to the extent that instead of full back wages, the workman was held entitled to 50% back wages. Counsel accordingly, prays that the present writ petition be allowed and similar relief may be granted to the C.W.P.No.6962 of 2001 -3- petitioner-workman. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent Mr.Ashwani Parashar, Advocate, has strenuously argued that a finding has been recorded by the Labour Court that full retrenchment compensation has been duly paid to the workman and his termination was in accordance with law and, thus, no interference by this Court is called for. However, counsel for the respondent is unable to distinguish/rebut the contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 30.8.2000 in the case of Balwinder Singh vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, passed in C.W.P.No.7176 of 1999. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As per the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, which factual aspect could not be disputed by the counsel for the respondent, I am of the firm opinion that the claim of the petitioner is fully covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in C.W.P.No.7176 of 1999 titled as Balwinder Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, on 30.8.2000. Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 29.5.2000 is set aside and the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms, however, with a direction that instead of full back wages the workman will be entitled to 50% back wages as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.1122 of 2001 titled as Ferozepur Cooperative Bank Limited and others vs. Balwinder Singh decided on 13.8.2001. April 07, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE