IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19549 of 2009 Date of decision: 02.08.2010 Daya Chand ...Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. When this case came up for hearing before this Court on 28.06.2010, it was observed as under:- “ When faced with the situation that reference made to the labour Court was in regard to the termination being bad or not, the counsel prays for time to have instructions whether he would withdraw this petition to seek a fresh reference to the effect that he was wrongly de-regularised after having been regularised.” Today, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to seek a reference of the dispute but would be faced with the difficulty of delay in making such approach. The petitioner would be at liberty to explain delay on the ground that he Civil Writ Petition No. 19549 of 2009 -2- was pursuing his remedy for which he came up to this Court and the same shall be considered by the Government and subsequently it raised before the labour Court, once the dispute is referred, in accordance with law. The present writ petition is, however, dismissed as not pressed with liberty to seek reference. August 02, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE