IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12091 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 04, 2009 Dharam Raj ...... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. In this case the dispute is that the services of the petitioner were terminated and he had sought a reference. That reference was decided on 22.9.2003 in the following terms:- “Parties compromised. Workman made a statement that Shri Partap Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Kaithal, told him in the court today itself that the department will engage him as worker on daily wages from tomorrow. He will be adjusted on work as per the requirement and keeping in view his seniority. He relinquishes his claim for back wages and continuity of service. He does not want to pursue the claim statement and it be dismissed as CWP No. 12091 of 2007 -2- withdrawn. Shri Partap Singh, Divisional Forest Officer, Kaithal accepted it. He stated that the workman can come on duty from 23.9.2003, if he so wishes. In view of the statement made by the parties, the claim statement is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the parties will be bound by their statements made by them.” It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are not adhering to that compromise faithfully and that the compromise was arrived at in a manner to overreach the Court. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand denies the same and says that the compromise has been followed faithfully. The net result is that the petitioner who was working as Beldar has been out of job either justifiably or unjustifiably. It would not be possible for the Writ Court to decide this controversy. In the circumstances I deem it appropriate to set aside the compromise and to remand the matter back to the learned Labour Court, Ambala to decide the reference on merits from the stage where it was on 22.9.2003 immediately before the compromise was recorded. The learned Labour Court will also examine the issue regarding the divergent stands of the parties with regard to the fact as to whether the petitioner was kept out of job unjustifiably or whether he himself did not join as and when required. The case be decided within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that in the event that the reference is decided in favour of the petitioner, he would be entitled to back wages at least from the period 22.9.2003 till date. This specific dispensation is made in view of the stand of the respondents that in CWP No. 12091 of 2007 -3- fact it is the petitioner who is responsible for his unemployment. It would be open to the Labour Court to award back wages or not to ward back wages for the remaining period. Petition stands disposed off accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 04, 2009 sunita