LPA No. 301 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 301 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 13, 2011 M/s. Diamond Engineering Works …Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant None for the respondents 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 under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 17.01.2009, which in fact refers to detail order passed in CWP No. 15385 of 2006 of the same date. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge reads under: “ In the light of the order passed in CWP No. 15385 of 2006 titled as M/s. Diamond Engineering Works v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Gurgaon and another, wherein the claim granted to the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act stands adjudicated, this petition cannot proceed any further. In view of upholding of the award passed by the Labour Court dated 20.03.1998, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 14.01.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Gurgaon is proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Dismissed.” 2. It is, thus, obvious that the writ petition relatable to this LPA was also disposed of on account of decision taken in CWP No. 15385 of LPA No. 301 of 2009 -2- 2006. Against the judgment rendered in CWP No. 15385 of 2006, LPA No. 300 of 2009 was filed and a Division Bench of this Court has recorded a consent order on 29.07.2010 in the aforesaid appeal and the consent order reads as under: “Learned counsel for the appellant after obtaining instructions from Mr. Sanjeev Narendra, the sole proprietor of the appellant-firm who is present in the Court states that in addition to Rs. One Lakh, which has already been deposited with the Labour Court, Gurgaon, another sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- shall be paid to the workman-respondent No.2 in lieu of his all dues and reinstatement in service, within a period of three months from today i.e. on or before 29.10.2010. Mr. P.K. Sachdeva, learned counsel for the workman- respondent No.2 has accepted the aforesaid offer and states that the amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- in addition to Rs. 1,00,000/- must be deposited within the period as fixed by this Court. In view of the above, the appeal does not survive for adjudication and is disposed of in terms of the statement made by the sole proprietor of the appellant-firm through his counsel. The appellant shall remain bound by the statement made before this Court. In case, the payment is not made within the stipulated time, the workman-respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before this Bench.” 3. In view of the above, the present appeal would not survive for adjudication and the same is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 13, 2011 Atul