C.W.P. No.11683 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11683 of 2003 Date of Decision: 13.11.2009 Jatinder Pal Singh .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ramesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 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 award under challenge is rejection of reference sought at the instance of the workman, who complained that the establishment had employed more than 500 workmen and the termination, which was brought about at the instance of the management did not conform to the requirements of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. The management did not deny that there was no retrenchment but stated that one month's notice had been paid and the petitioner cannot complain of any violation. The Labour Court had adopted a strange reasoning that the workman had failed to prove the inadequacy of compensation. Adequacy or otherwise is irrelevant and it has to be only seen C.W.P. No.11683 of 2003 -2- whether an action of the management conforms to law. If there was no compliance of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act in that the Government's permission had not been sought for retrenching a workman, the action of the management cannot be ligitimized by looking into adequacy of compensation. The adequacy is not what a Judge's subjective assessment is; on the other hand it is what the law specifically provides for. The Labour Court has completely derailed itself into the reasoning which is inappropriate. The case arises out of an admitted premise that there was no permission sought by the management before retrenching the workman. The Labour Court ought to have accepted the contention of the workman and held that the retrenchment was bad in law. 2. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the workman is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 13, 2009 Pankaj*