LPA No.534 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.534 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.10.2010 Jugal Kishore ....Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: - Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.2 to 4. 1.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, has been preferred by the workman, challenging judgment dated 3.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of his petition. It has come on record that the workman-appellant was working as Baledar and he rendered service as such from 1.11.1988 to 31.3.1990 when his services were terminated. Although, the Labour Court has declined any relief to the workman-appellant but the learned Single Judge after delving into the record found that the workman- appellant had rendered service for about 17 months. On account of delay of over 10 years in seeking reference, the learned Single Judge has declined the relief of reinstatement and in lieu of violation of Section 25-F has awarded to the workman-appellant a sum of ` 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) against the respondents. Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the workman- LPA No.534 of 2010 -2- appellant, has submitted that a number of posts are lying vacant and the workman is entitled to be adjusted by granting him relief of reinstatement However, the aforesaid submission has been opposed by the learned State counsel and reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, (2001) 6 SCC 222. Mr. Sehgal has argued that in cases where there is a long delay in seeking adjudication of a dispute, the Court can suitably mould the relief. He has read out to us specific observations made in para No.15 in that regard. Having heard the learned counsel of the parties, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has rightly moulded the relief of awarding ` 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) on account of violation of Section 25-F. In view of the fact that workman-appellant had sought reference after about 10 years 9 months, the availability of the vacancies of Baledars in the department of respondents would not provide any justification for directing the reinstatement of workman- appellant. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal and it does not warrant admission. Dismissed. (M.M. Kumar) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge October 26, 2010 R.S.