IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18670 of 1997 Date of decision:15.07.2009 Raj Kumar ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour ...Respondents Court, Panipat and others. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mrs. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Harish Nain, Advocate, for respondent No.4. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Labour Court that dealt with a claim from a workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, rejected the claim insofar as respondents 1 and 2 namely Women and Child Development Department and Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) and stated in the order that the workman who was appointed by Janta Kalyan Samiti (3rd respondent) could recover the amount from that Samiti in accordance with law. The Janta Kalyan Samiti, Rewari was actually a party in the claim petition before the Labour Court and it is not Civil Writ Petition No.18670 of 1997 - 2 - clear from the order as to why the Labour Court instead of awarding the claim against the 3rd respondent in express terms observed that it could be done as per law. The application before the Labour Court itself was in accordance with such procedure established by law. 2. The claimant admittedly had worked as an Assistant in Janta Kalyan Samiti in a project sponsored by the Government of India through Women and Child Development Department. The claim with the annexures giving details was on the basis that between the period 04.01.1995 to March 1996, the workman had been paid less wages that what he was entitled to and from April 1996 to December 1996, he had not been paid his salary at all. The Janta Kalyan Samiti, who was the employer, had not joined issues and chose to remain ex parte before the Labour Court. In the writ petition, the Janta Kalyan Samiti which was impleaded as 4th respondent had stated that the project itself was wound up in September 1996. The petitioner had worked only upto 30.09.1996 and he was relieved because the Government had withdrawn the sponsorship scheme and stopped payment. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to enter into a controversy again and would rest contended with pursuing the claim upto September 1996 only instead of December 1996. The award which finds that the Samiti shall be liable for the payment to the workman has not been challenged by the Samiti by means of any writ petition. As far as Samiti is concerned, therefore, that has even become final. The writ petition itself has been necessitated only by want of specific orders while disposing of the claim petition through the order which is impugned. The liability of Civil Writ Petition No.18670 of 1997 - 3 - the Samiti to make payment upto 30.09.1996 is unexceptional and there shall be an order as sought for by the claimant in all respects save for the period from October to December 1996 for which period there is admittedly no proof that he was employed. 3. The writ petition is, therefore, ordered only against the 4th respondent-Janta Kalyan Samiti. It shall be payable from 07.10.1997 till with simple interest @ 7.5 % per annum. 4. The writ petition is allowed in terms as indicated above. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.07.2009 sanjeev