IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.12855 of 2009 Date of Decision:13.12.2010 Smt. Neelam Rani .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present:- Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (Oral) The petitioner is working as Peon-cum-Chowkidar in Arrivali Project, Firozepur Jhirka. He was appointed on 3.6.1991. His services were terminated on 6.12.1992. Thereafter, he submitted a demand notice and a dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The Labour Court finally answered the reference in favour of the petitioner on 12.5.2000 and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with full back- wages. This order was challenged by the respondent- State by filing a writ petition before this Court averring that the post which was sanctioned for Arravali Project has been abolished and all the employees working in the Arravali Project have been transferred to another department. The grievance of the petitioner was that she was not transferred or adjusted in other department like other employees. The Sub Divisional Officer, Arravali Project had then filed a Civil Writ Petition No.3003 of 2008 for setting aside the award dated 12.5.2000 and this Hon'ble Court was pleased C.W.P. No.12855 of 2009 -2- to dismiss the writ petition on 28.2.2008. The petitioner was invited to join service and his services were again terminated. The respondents justified this action in view of the liberty given to them while disposing of C.W.P. No.3003 of 2008. Mr. Rathee has today drawn my attention to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ petition in which it was specifically observed that the petitioner (respondent- State) would be at liberty to terminate the services of the workman in accordance with Industrial Disputes Act in case it is proved that the project has been completed. As per Mr. Rathee, since the project is complete, so the services of the petitioner have been terminated after following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Rathee further informs that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.2,72,000/- as backwages and compensation to ensure compliance of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Karan Singh appearing for the petitioner prays for an adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is in difficulty. Time and again, it has been reiterated that if any adjournment is needed, a written request in this regard should be made. Request for adjournment is, therefore, declined. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. December 13, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) renu JUDGE