IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5247 of 1988. Date of Decision : January 14, 2009. The Kalyan Sukha Co-operative Agriculture ..... Petitioner. Service Society. Versus. The Presiding Officer, Bathinda, and another. .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The petitioner has challenged the award dated 04.04.1988 (Annexure-P-6), passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, vide which the reference was answered in favour of workman and he was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages since 03.01.1986. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the workman has approached the Labour Court without availing departmental remedy available to him under the statute and therefore, the reference was itself not maintainable. For the said contention, counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Versus Mannu Barrick and others, 2005 (2) S.C.C. 236. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having rushed to the Labour Court without availing the remedy of appeal provided under Section 68 of C.W.P. No. 5247 of 1988. the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, the reference would not be maintainable. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have gone through the records of the case and award dated 04.04.1988 (Annexure-P-6) impugned herein. A perusal of the same would show that this ground was never taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court. Further, the services of the petitioner stood terminated and it was open to the workman to avail of remedy either by way of approaching the Labour Court or availing the remedy which has been provided under the Rules governing service. The Judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner relates to a case where departmental inquiry was initiated against the workman and during the pendency of that departmental inquiry, the workman has approached the Labour Court the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court was in the facts of that case. In the present case, the workman was a Salesman with the petitioner Society. He was suspected of embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 4,107. 52 paise. The matter having been referred to the Arbitrator, an award was passed against the workman. On the basis of the said award, the services of the workman was terminated vide Resolution dated 05.11.1984. The workman preferred an appeal against the award of the Arbitrator which was made the basis for terminating the services of the workman. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bathinda, accepted the appeal preferred by the workman, vide his order dated 22.04.1985, setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator. Once the award which was made the basis of terminating the services of the workman and the basis itself having become non existent, the Labour Court has proceeded to hold -2- C.W.P. No. 5247 of 1988. dismissal of the workman, as not in accordance with law. That being the position and no retrenchment compensation having been paid to the workman nor the case of the workman being found to be falling within the definition of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination of the workman was held to be illegal. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court. That being so, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award dated 04.04.1988 (Annexure-P-6), passed in favour of the workman. In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 14,2009. sjks. -3-