C.W.P. No.16090 of 1996 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.16090 of 1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 7,2011 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation ........... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another ...................................... Respondents\ Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... RITU BAHRI, J. Reply to application for early hearing is taken on record. The petitioner Management terminated the services of respondent No.2 which gave rise to the industrial dispute. The Labour Court vide award dated 22.5.1996 reinstated the workman with continuity of service but without back wages. The Management challenged the award C.W.P. No.16090 of 1996 (O&M) [ 2 ] by filing the present writ petition and the operation of the impugned award was stayed. During the pendency of the writ petition a direction was given to the Management to pay wages with effect from 1.9.2003 to 31.1.2005 under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 6.5.2009 the workman was allowed to join duty. One Harjinder Singh, an employee of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (petitioner) who was similarly situated was ordered to be reinstated by the Labour Court. The Corporation challenged the award by way of C.W.P. No. 372 of 2001 which was allowed and subsequently Harjinder Singh challenged the order dated 6.2.2009 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of this Court and award of the Labour Court was restored. Judgment of the Supreme Court is Annexure 'A'. In that case service of the workman had been terminated while retaining the juniors and it was held that the termination was bad for non-compliance of Section 25-G of the Act. In the High Court, the learned Single Judge substituted the award of reinstatement with the compensation of `87,582/- by assuming that appellant was initially appointed without complying with the equality clause enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the relevant regulations. This plea was not taken before the Labour Court C.W.P. No.16090 of 1996 (O&M) [ 3 ] by the Management. The award of the Labour Court has been restored and costs of `25,000/- has been imposed on the Corporation. In the present case, the Labour Court reinstated the workman on the ground that as per the Management's Rules as provided in the Punjab Warehousing Act, 1954 Section 34 and Punjab Warehousing Staff Regulations 1960 the Corporation was to give two months notice before retrenchment. During the pendency of the writ petition he has been paid his wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. On similar ground, reference has been made to orders dated 19.9.1996 and 11.1.1996 (Annexures R2/4 and R2/5) whereby the award of the Labour Court has been upheld by dismissing the writ petition filed by Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 587 of 2010 decided on 5.1.2010), this writ petition is dismissed by awarding a cost of `20,000/- to the respondent-workman. 7.7.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE