IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18271 of 2009 Date of decision: 30.11.2009 Managing Director, The Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills Private Limited, Paniar, Gurdaspur. ....Petitioner versus Tarsem Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ---- 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The award which is in challenge in the writ petition is a direction for reinstatement with 25% back wages @ Rs.1,350/- per month. Before the Labour Court, evidence was adduced to the effect that the workman had been engaged since March 1988 and he had been terminated from service in the year 1997, which according to the management, was on account of the fact that the distillery unit had been closed. It was also brought out in evidence that the persons junior to the workman such as, Swaran Singh, and 9 others had joined subsequently but they were all being retained, while only the workman's services had been sought to be terminated. The evidence relating to the retention of Civil Writ Petition No.18271 of 2009 - 2 - services of junior workmen had been brought out by WW2- Charanjit Singh, Clerk of the Mill. The Labour Court, under the circumstances, although did not found that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service, found however that there had been violation of the principle protected on under Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, it held that the termination of service was not in accordance with law. The Labour Court also found that after the termination of services, the workman had served a demand notice only on 25.08.1999 i.e. nearly 2 years afterwards and afforded to the workman the relief of 25% back wages only. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the workman was a daily wager and that such a daily wager shall not be entitled to reinstatement. There is no law to the effect that daily wager cannot be reinstated. It all depends on the nature of the availability of the work, the number of years of service put in, the mode of recruitment etc. The Labour Court has exercised its discretion and on due consideration of the facts, has ordered reinstatement. There is nothing amiss in the award to call for intervention in the writ petition. 3. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.11.2009 sanjeev