IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.75 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.7.2009 Director, HSMITC, Haryana, Chandigarh & another. -----Appellants Vs. Bhim Singh & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vijay Jindal, Advocate for respondents. ----- ORDER: 1. On July 03, 2009, following order was passed:- “In pursuance of earlier order dated 5.2.2009, substituted service by publication is said to have been effected. Thus, service is treated as complete. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant-Corporation has already been closed. As regards the statement of Advocate General, it is explained that the same was made in C.W.P. Nos.185 and 186 of 1987 on 30.9.1987 which related to the employees of the State and not to the employees of the Corporation and on that ground, parity could not be sought in the present case. Learned counsel for some of the contesting respondents states that the amount is payable insignificant and the employees have already been LPA No.75 of 2007 discharged from service on account of closure of the Corporation. He, however, seeks time to mention the exact amount which is due. On his request, adjourned to 14.7.2009.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the liability arising out of this order may be about Rs.50 lacs while learned counsel for the respondents states that the liability may be about Rs.12 lacs. 3. In view of heavy liability involved, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the concession made by the counsel related to employees of the State and not the employees of the Corporation and in any case, the statement of the counsel was factually erroneous. Similar benefits have not been given to any of the employees of the Corporation. This could not be disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. 5. In view of above, the assumption in the order of learned Single Judge was not correct. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded to learned Single Judge for fresh decision, on merits, in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 14, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) 2 LPA No.75 of 2007 ashwani JUDGE 3