IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 2673 of 2009 and C.W.P. No. 9914 of 2008. Date of Decision : February 12 , 2009. Ved Parkash. .... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal ...Respondents. -cum-Labour Court-II, Chanidgarh, and another. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 2673 of 2009. Application allowed as prayed for and the documents Annexures-R-5 to R-7 are taken record. C.W.P.No. 9914 of 2008. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 09.10.2006 (Annexure-P-4) wherein the reference has been answered against the workman, however, the workman has been held entitled to retrenchment compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9% if the payments of the dues has already not been made which he was offered but he failed to collect. C.W.P. No. 9914 of 2008. Counsel for the petitioner contends that for compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the retrenchment compensation should have been paid to the workman alongwith retrenchment notice which has not been done, and therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. He contends that the notice was never served upon the workman, therefore, the stage of payment of retrenchment amount has not arrived. A perusal of the award would show that the workman was issued retrenchment notice on 27.02.1990 but the workman refused to receive the same, this is an admitted fact which has come out from the affidavit which has been produced by the workman in evidence before the Labour Court. In view of the specific admission on the part of the workman that he had refused to accept the notice, it cannot be said that the notice was not served upon the workman. The notice dated 27.02.1990 as has been referred by the Labour Court, which has been placed on record as Annexure- P-1 with the present writ petition, clearly stated that one month's wage in lieu of notice and the amount of retrenchment compensation be collected by the workman from the S.D.O. C/W S/D-II B.P., Bhiwani. The retrenchment was to take effect from 28.02.1990, and therefore, as per the notice the said amount was to be collected by the workman from the authorised officer. Perusal of the Annexure-P-1 further states that a copy of the said notice be put on the notice board of the office and place of work as well which indeed was done as has come on the record. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that it is only an offer for collection of the retrenchment amount and retrenchment compensation has not been paid alongwith notice of retrenchment. He relies -2- C.W.P. No. 9914 of 2008. upon the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Management of Kodumudi Growers Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kodumudi Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and another, 1998(7) S.L.R. Page 77, to contend that mere offer does not amount to compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This judgment is based on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gurmail Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and others, 1991 (1) S.C.C. 189, (relevant para No. 9). In the present case as the facts would depict and as stated above, the workman was required to collect the amount from where he always receives his wages and that was the proper place where the money would have been paid to him as per rules and further there was still time for the retrenchment to take effect and there was sufficient notice to the workman to collect his compensation amount before the retrenchment was to become effective. Therefore, this judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, no illegality can be found with the award passed by the Labour Court which would call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 intimates that a cheque amounting to Rs. 4,997/- was sent at the address of the workman-petitioner and after receiving the cheque the workman-petitioner returned the same by registered post. He has offered the same to counsel for the petitioner in the Court today but he has refused to accept the same. -3- C.W.P. No. 9914 of 2008. The respondents are directed to again send the cheque to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. It is made clear that from the date of issuance of the cheque there would be no further interest as per the award of the Labour Court as the petitioner has earlier received the cheque and then returned the same by registered post. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE February 12, 2009. sjks. -4-