C.W.P.No.14605 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14605 of 1994 Date of Decision: 13.12.2011 The Mohindergarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer and Anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.J.S.Hooda, Advocate for Mr.S.S.Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajat Panjeta, Advocate for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) In the wake of an industrial dispute raised under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Jai Parkash son of Siri Ram (respondent No.2) workman, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (respondent No.1) directed the petitioner-management of The Mohindergarh Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. to reinstate him (workman) with continuity of service and full back wages, by means of impugned award dated 25.5.1994 (Annexure P5), the operative part of which is (para 9) as under:- “9. In the present case, it is evidence (sic. evident) from the perusal of the appointment letter Ex.M2 that petitioner was initially appointed on 14.10.88 for 89 days. Thereafter, he was again appointed vide appointment letter Ex.M7 w.e.f. 30.1.89. He was again appointed w.e.f. 22.5.89 vide order Ex.M.11 and was relieved from duty w.e.f. 18.8.89. MW1 Shri Azad Singh admitted that appointment letters Ex.M7 and Ex.M11 do not bear the signatures of the petitioner in token of their receipt. Workman categorically stated that he never received any appointment letter except the initial appointment letter. He also denied that he had handed over the charge after expiry of every three months. According to petitioner, he had continuously worked with the respondent from 14.10.88 to 18.8.89, however, management gave notional breaks in the service of the petitioner on papers. C.W.P.No.14605 of 1994 -2- A perusal of the documents shows that there are break of about 15 days between 1st and second appointment and a break of 22 days between second and third appointment. Workman also stated that he had been performing manual duties such as maintaining cash book and diary despatch during the alleged period of break, but management failed to produce cash book, diary/despatch of the alleged period of break. From these facts, it is clear that management had given notion break in order to break continuity of petitioner's service. From the above discussion, it is evident that petitioner had continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of his termination. Admittedly, management did not give any notice or pay in lieu thereof, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him, while terminating his service. In view of the above observations, I am of the view that termination of services of the petitioner was illegal and unjustified. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement into his job with continuity of service and full back wages.” 2. The petitioner-management did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned award (Annexure P5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioner has utterly failed to point out any legal violation or material, muchless cogent, even to suggest remotely as to how and in what manner, the impugned award is illegal and would warrant any interference by this court. Moreover, the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that since the respondent-workman has already died, so, the present writ petition has become infructuous, which may be dismissed as such. 4. In this view of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 13.12.2011 Judge AS