IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6098 of 1989 Date of Decision:- 23.03.2009 The Chahal Cooperative Agriculture Services Society Ltd. ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bathinda and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr.Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the order dated 26.10.1988 (Annexure P-3)passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda vide which the application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') moved by respondent No.2- workman has been allowed holding him entitled to Rs.7650/- along with Rs.100/- as costs. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The contention as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Labour Court has relied upon Rule 13 of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Service Rules, 1986 (hereinafter to referred to as the Service Rules) to grant benefit to the workman, which are not ipso facto applicable to the Societies. It has been contended that C.W.P.No.6098 of 1989 -2- letter dated 17.11.1986 (Annexure P-4) written by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab Chandigarh, clearly stipulates that the Service Rules had to be adopted by the Managing Committees/Administrators of the Primary Agricultural Services Societies. A perusal of the writ petition would show that it has not been contended by the petitioner-Society that the said Rules have not been adopted by the Society as per the requirement of letter dated 17.11.1986 (Annexure P-4). Without this contention by the petitioner, the ground as has been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition has no force. The onus with regard to the applicability of the 1986 Rules stood discharged when the workman stated so before the Labour Court. The onus thereafter shifted to the petitioner-Management to contend that the said Rules had not been adopted by it. Having failed to discharge its onus nor making a pleading to that effect in the present writ petition, the contention as raised by the petitioner is not acceptable. In view of this, the 1986 Rules, reliance whereof has been made by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order dated 26.10.1988, cannot be faulted with. The factual aspect is with regard to the suspension of the workman vide its resolution dated 12.7.1987 and the termination of the workman on 12.7.1988 are not in dispute. Since the workman had made his claim from 1.7.1987 to 30.4.1988, the Labour Court has proceeded to decide his claim, as per details therein and the quantification is mentioned in the impugned order itself which has not been disputed. In this view of the matter, no illegality can be said to have been C.W.P.No.6098 of 1989 -3- committed by the Labour Court vide its order dated 26.10.1988 (Annexure P-3) which would persuade this Court to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition stands dismissed. March 23, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No