CWP No. 8416 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8416 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.05.2010 P.K.Tiwari ...... PETITIONER VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Ram Pal Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 05.05.2009 (Annexure P-3), vide which the termination of the services of the workman has been held to be not in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act but has been declined the relief of reinstatement on the ground that the respondent-Management is suffering huge losses and its case is pending for reconstruction of the company and was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for its declaration as sick company on 31.03.1997. In lieu of reinstatement, the petitioner has been held entitled to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for his illegal termination. CWP No. 8416 of 2010 2 Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court has given a categoric finding that the termination of the services of the workman was not in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also contends that the Management Witness MW-1 Sh.A.K.Gupta, Senior Divisional Manager has stated that no officer was retrenched to reduce expenditure. He, on this basis, contends that the similarly placed employees, who were selected along with the petitioner, have been retained in service by the respondent-Management and, therefore, the petitioner should have been granted the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity thereof. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. On the basis of the evidence, which has been placed on record, the Labour Court has held that the termination of the services of the workman was not in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. While granting relief in exercise of its powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court has taken into consideration the financial position of the respondent-company, which is suffering huge losses and its case is pending for reconstruction of company and was referred to BIFR for declaration as sick company. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to inform the Court the fate of the said reference made to BIFR for declaration of the company as a sick company. He admits that there is no evidence on record before the Labour Court which would suggest that the persons junior to the petitioner have been retained in service. That being the position, the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified as the relief has been moulded by the Labour Court keeping CWP No. 8416 of 2010 3 in view the facts and circumstances of the case relying upon the evidence, which has been placed on record. The workman has thus rightly been held entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement for his illegal termination. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 10, 2010 pj