IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 985 of 1995 Date of Decision: July 18, 2011 Prem Lata ….Petitioner Versus Smt. J.K. Grewal. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) I have gone through the record. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was working Packer-cum-Checker with the respondent on regular basis from 1982 to April 1990. The services of the petitioner were terminated illegally on 02.05.1990 by the respondent. Petitioner challenged her termination before the Labour Court, Patiala and the learned Labour Court passed the award against the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 11468 of 1993 before this Court. In the said writ petition, COCP No.985 of 1995 respondent gave undertaking to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages and the petitioner accepted the offer and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 18.05.1995 on the statements of the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent offered the post on Piece rate basis, whereas, she was working on regular basis when her services were terminated. Respondent in her reply specifically stated that “in the spirit of the orders dated 18.05.1995, the answering respondent issued the appropriate orders to the petitioner to resume her duty as a lady helper. The petitioner came to the workshop but did not join work and rather wanted an explanation as to whether the continuity of service will imply pensionary benefits or not. Since, the petitioner refused to accept the letter and refused to join duties, the answering respondent sent a registered letter on May 22, 1995 again requesting her to join duty. The receipt of the letter was admitted by the petitioner. The petitioner, however, invented a different story to say that she was not handed over any reinstatement letter and that she was not allowed to join duties. In fact, the petitioner refused to join duty and made a claim that she should be allowed to join on the post of packer-cum-checker and should be allowed full pay scale. The answering respondent once again clarified the position and made all possible efforts to request the petitioner to join 2 COCP No.985 of 1995 duties. It was further explained to the petitioner that working on piece rate basis does not mean that she will not be working on regular basis. It was explained that she will work continuously as long as there is work to do in the unit. The piece rate basis means that she will not be entitled to draw a fixed salary as desired by her but will be paid on piece rate basis because she was being paid on piece rate basis only, when she left the job earlier.” Petitioner has not rebutted the contentions made by the respondent. As such, from the facts of the case, no contempt of is made out, hence, the present petition is dismissed. July 18, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3