C.W.P. No.8032 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8032 of 1989 Date of Decision: 08.12.2009 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana through its Commissioner ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana and another ....Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petitioner, who had been directed by the award of the Labour Court to reinstate the workman challenges the same on the ground that the workman was not in the regular appointment and that they had merely removed him from the rolls and did not retrench the workman. The finding of the Labour Court that the termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, according to the petitioner, was not justified. 2. This case grapples with the situation of an Octroi Clerk, who having put in 6 years of service was ultimately terminated from service following a complaint that the workman was guilty C.W.P. No.8032 of 1989 -2- of embezzlement and after serving him charge-sheet without proceeding further merely removed him from the roll and denied to him the employment. The Labour Court reasoned that the termination in whatever manner it was effected, so long as it resulted in admitted snapping of relationship between master and servant would constitute a retrenchment and all the more so when a misconduct was attributed to him and a charge-sheet had also been levied against him but ultimately without constituting an enquiry or concluding the same proceeded to deny to the workman the continuance of service. The Labour Court found that the misconduct had not been established by examination independent witness. The Labour Court, therefore, granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Stay had been granted in the year 1989 and today when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of both the parties. The case cannot indefinitely await the presence of the parties for an adjudication. The facts are clear enough to affirm what the Labour Court has done, after consideration of evidence from both the parties. 3. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed and the stay which was already granted by the interim order shall stand vacated. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 08, 2009 Pankaj*