HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9328 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.10.2011 **** Satish Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Branch Manager, LIC & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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: Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh K Sharma, Advocate for respondent NO.1 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner served a demand notice on the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) through the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, who vide its order dated 23.06.2006 (Annexure P2) opined that there existed an industrial dispute and referred the same for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi-II. A copy of the aforesaid order was sent to the petitioner also at his Bhiwani address. It appears that the petitioner’s address had meanwhile changed and it was duly intimated to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 07.08.2006 CWP No.9328 of 2010.doc - 2 – (Annexure P3). Since the petitioner did not receive the order dated 23.06.2006 referring the ‘industrial dispute’ to the Labour Court, he could not appear before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi-II. (2). The Labour Court also sent a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to file the claim statement but that notice too was received back with a report that the workman had given wrong address. The learned Presiding Officer therefore held that no award could be given for want of claim statement. (3). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (4). The LIC though has filed its reply/affidavit disputing the petitioner’s entitlement to any relief but the fact that no notice was ever sent to him either at the changed address by the Ministry of Labour is not in dispute. (5). In the light of these admitted facts, however, without expressing any views as to whether or not the petitioner is entitled to any relief, the order dated 09.10.2006 (Annexure P4) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi-II is set aside and the proceedings are directed to be revived. The petitioner shall submit the claim statement within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order which shall then be adjudicated by the CWP No.9328 of 2010.doc - 3 – concerned Labour Court in accordance with law after due notice to the Management (LIC). (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 20.10.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge