1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2127 of 1991 Date of decision:- 03.12.2010 The State of Punjab through the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) Division No. 1, Patiala. ......Petitioner Vs Sh. Charna and another. ......Respondents CWP No. 2128 of 1991 Date of decision:- 03.12.2010 The State of Punjab through the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) Division No. 1, Patiala. ......Petitioner Vs Sh. Parkash Chand and another. ......Respondents CWP No. 2129 of 1991 Date of decision:- 03.12.2010 The State of Punjab through the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) Division No. 1, Patiala. ......Petitioner Vs Sh. Rala Singh and another. ......Respondents CWP No. 2130 of 1991 Date of decision:- 03.12.2010 The State of Punjab through the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) Division No. 1, Patiala. ......Petitioner Vs Sh. Amar Nath and another. ......Respondents 2 CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioners. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) The challenge in the present writ-petitions by the State of Punjab is against a common award dated 03.05.1990 passed by the learned Labour Court, Patiala holding the respondents-workmen to be entitled to the benefit of one increment for not participating in the general strike of State Government employees that had occurred on 08.02.1978. The above conclusion of the learned Tribunal was reached after due consideration of the case of the petitioner-employer that the respondents-workmen were work-charge employees and that no material had been laid by the employer in that regard. Accordingly, the respondents-workmen were directed to be treated as regular employees. The finding recorded by the learned Labour Court in the award under challenge is a pure finding of fact occasioned by the absence of any relevant material being placed before it by the petitioner- employer. Such a finding of fact will not be reopened by the Writ Court unless the same can be said to be opposed to the weight of the evidence and materials on record or the same is patently erroneous. The above apart, the benefit of increment awarded by the learned Labour Court to the respondents-workmen is to the extent of Rs. 800/- (approximately) each. The writ petitions have been pending for the last over 20 years. In fact it is incomprehensible why the petitioner- State had chosen to file the writ petitions challenging the paltry amounts 3 made payable to the respondents-workmen by the award in question. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in any of the writ petitions under consideration. All the writ petitions, therefore, stand dismissed. (RANJAN GOGOI) 03.12.2010 JUDGE Amodh