IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1155 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.9.2010 Nachhatar Singh … Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of Letters Patent, is directed against judgment dated 8.10.2009, rendered by learned Single Judge in CWP No.16604 of 2001. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categoric finding that no vacancy is available, and no further appointment has been made to the same post from which the writ petitioner-appellant was retrenched after passing of the award by the Labour Court. It is pertinent to notice that the Labour Court in its award dated 5.4.2001 (Annexure P-1) recorded a finding that since workman had not completed 240 days of service in this case, nothing was required to be done by the management and his termination is held to be validly made. Since management had failed to summon the workman to consider his case for re-appointment, the management is directed to consider the workman for appointment as and when any fresh vacancy arises according to his eligibility. Therefore, it has been held that the direction issued by the Labour Court to consider the claim of the workman for re-employment in case of any future vacancy, has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. LPA No.1155 of 2010 (O&M) Mr.Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant has argued that the post of helper has become available. We have consideration the submission but it is not the same post on which the workman was working at the time of his retrenchment. Even he has not completed 240 days of service. From the award passed by the Labour Court, it is patent that he has worked either on the post of carpenter or black -smith. No exception is provided by the finding of learned Single Judge to interfere. There is no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 15.09.2010 sd 2