IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9603 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.11.2009 Rajender ....Petitioner versus The Executive Engineer, Public Health, Tosham, District Bhiwani and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 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 before this Court is a rejection on a reference sought at the instance of the workman. The Labour Court found that the engagement had been without following the due procedure in a public establishment and it was also held that the engagement fell within the four corners of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On such line of reasoning, the Labour Court rejected the workman's demand for reinstatement. 2. The contention of the workman was that he had been working continuously from 15.06.2001 to 23.05.2005 when his services Civil Writ Petition No.9603 of 2009 - 2 - were illegally terminated. The workman was reported to have brought 5 witnesses including himself to state that he had been in continuous employment. It is also contended that the workman had given notice to produce the attendance register and the Labour Court had also recorded the fact that the record of attendance was also produced before the Court. It is reported that the workman had given notice to produce documents and in para 9 of the award, the Labour Court had stated that the department had produced complete record of attendance. In the same para, it is also stated that the record of attendance brought in Court by the workman could not be proved. It is also stated that the photocopies of that record had not been maintained in the office of the department. There is a complete confusion about who produced the record and why those documents could not be accepted. The crucial period of enquiry shall be 12 months prior to the date of termination 23.05.2005. The Court shall render an adjudication on the said aspect after giving to parties such opportunity as it deems fit to adduce evidence regarding the same. 3. The Labour Court has found that the engagement was through a back door entry, when there was not even such a plea for the reinstatement. The finding in that regard is vacated. The Court has also stated that the engagement qualified for the application of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is also without any basis. The said finding is also vacated. 4. The award of the Labour Court is, under the circumstances, set aside and remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in the Civil Writ Petition No.9603 of 2009 - 3 - light of observations mentioned above. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 21.12.2009. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. 27.11.2009 (K.KANNAN) sanjeev JUDGE