L.P.A. No. 1126 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1126 of 2009 Date of Decision 17.08.2010 Santokh Singh -----Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer and another ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, 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 by workman-appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 3374 of 2009 modifying the award of the Labour Court delivered on 23.11.2007 (Annexure P-2). The view taken by the Labour Court was that the appointment of the workman-appellant was covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the workman-appellant was appointed on 01.04.1996 and he continued in service till September, 2003. The workman is stated to have completed 8 years of service and the finding recorded by the Labour Court that his case was covered by Section 2(oo)(bb), L.P.A. No. 1126 of 2009 -2- has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, by placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge has declined the reinstatement but compensation amounting to Rs. 80,000/- has been granted. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity as it is based on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb, 2008(4) SCT 33. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE August 17, 2010 Atul