IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 170 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 10, 2010 Indian Hardware Industries Ltd. …Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer, Faridabad and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Sood, 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. 1. The instant appeal filed by the management under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 6.8.2009, rendered in CWP No. 11771 of 2008, by the learned Single Judge, while upholding the award. The Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge has recorded categorical finding that the workman-respondent had worked on the post of Time Keeper from 13.2.1984 to 26.9.1997 when he was retrenched. It has also been found that the appellant-management had failed to prove that the workman was junior- most employee in the company. The learned Single Judge also found that there were 39 employees as per the copy of the attendance register and no seniority list was prepared for the workmen of the company. The plea of the management that different categories of workmen were required to be treated in different lists and therefore, the workman-respondent must be considered as the junior-most in the category of Time Keeper, was not accepted because nothing LPA No. 170 of 2010 (O&M) was placed on record showing any such categorization of the workmen on the basis of their different cadres, duties etc. 2. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court, which have been accepted by the learned Single Judge call for no interference. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the management had followed the principle of ‘last come first go’. Even otherwise it is apparent that the workman-respondent had worked with the appellant-management for about 14 years. The failure of the appellant-management to substantiate its own plea that the workman-respondent was the junior-most, has resulted in recording of finding by the Labour Court that fair procedure in retrenchment has not been followed. Consequently, the workman-respondent has been reinstated in service with full back wages along with costs. 3. Even otherwise, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the workman-respondent and against the appellant-management by two recent judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Harjinder Krishan Singh v. Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 and Krishan Singh v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, (2010) 3 SCC 637. There is, thus, no mitigating factor which may persuade us to take a view that the workman-respondent is not entitled to reinstatement and full back wages. The appeal does not merit admission. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 LPA No. 170 of 2010 (O&M) (RITU BAHRI) September 10, 2010 JUDGE okg/Pkapoor 3