COCP No. 216 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 216 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.8.2010 Hardwari Lal ..... Petitioner Versus Mr. B. Kumad and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Shri R.K. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Anand Chhibbar, Advocate, for the respondents. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition alleging that he has not been paid his retiral dues uptil the date of deemed retirement in the year 2007. It is contended that the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on 17.2.2009, wherein the respondents were directed to grant all retiral benefits including half back-wages and other emoluments. On behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that the Letters Patent Bench has substituted the order of dismissal to that of termination and therefore, in terms of the order passed, the petitioner COCP No. 216 of 2010 (O&M) [2] is entitled to all retiral benefits till the date of order of termination i.e. 12.11.1999. All such benefits have been paid to the petitioner upto the said date. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have not complied with the directions of this Court. A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court shows that the order of punishment of dismissal was substituted with that of termination from services. After substitution of the punishment, the respondent-Company was directed to grant all retiral benefits including half back-wages etc. In reply, it has been pointed out that the petitioner has been paid full back wages upto 12.11.1999 and all other retiral benefits such as employees provident fund; settlement allowance; leave encashment; plant performance payment; gratuity and arrears on account of revision of wages, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 1.4.2005. Since the petitioner has been paid full wages upto the date of deemed termination, the petitioner is not entitled to any wages after the date of the order of such punishment. Hence, no further orders are called for in the present petition. Dismissed as having rendered infructuous. Rule is discharged. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 25.8.2010 preeti/ds