C.W.P. No.4452 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.4452 of 2000 Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corporation .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate with Mr. S.S. Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. 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. 1. The writ petition challenges the direction of reinstatement of the workman, who had been terminated from service on 10.09.1998 on the refusal of permission by the management to allow the workman to enter upon the premises. The management sought to defend its action on the ground namely the workman had been employed on contract and his period of services extended upto 13.05.1999. He had been terminated earlier on account of the fact that the workman had been warned several times for his activities prejudicial to the PESCO and he had worked against its interest. The Labour Court reasoned that if the termination was sought to be justified on the ground of alleged misconduct, the termination was bad in that no enquiry was C.W.P. No.4452 of 2000 -2- held and the termination was also made without following the statutory mandate prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also the contention of the workman that he was the Secretary of the Union and the termination had been effected during the pendency of a dispute of a reference made by the Government in relation to several demands made by the workman through the union. 2. Further, the Labour Court has considered the fact that the complainant-Harinder Singh was a Secretary of the Union and he was himself being discharged only because of his trade union activities. The Labour Court held that the evidence had not been even refuted by the management and the inference was that it had acted unfairly in terminating the services even without any attempt to comply with the mandatory provisions either of Section 33(3) or Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The finding of the Labour Court that the impugned action of the management in retrenching the workman was illegal, is under the circumstances justified and the writ petition challenging the order is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 13, 2009 Pankaj*