IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1355 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 11, 2010 Rashpal …Appellant Versus Presiding Officer and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 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 under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the un- successful workman is preferred against the judgment dated 22.9.2009, rendered by the learned Single Judge. The Labour Court has rejected a reference sought by the workman-appellant where he had claimed that his termination from service was against the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). However, the Labour Court held that Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was applicable and there was no illegality. On a writ petition filed by the workman-appellant, the learned Single Judge found that his retrenchment was without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and, therefore, his termination was held to be illegal. Another question considered by the learned Single Judge was whether the workman-appellant is entitled to reinstatement. By taking into consideration the principle of law that reinstatement is not automatic and cannot be granted merely because it is lawful to do so, the learned Single LPA No. 1355 of 2009 (O&M) Judge took into consideration the nature of engagement, the number of years of service, number of years of pendency of litigation and availability of work. It has been held that the workman-appellant had worked from 1.9.1985 to 15.6.1987 and a lump sum amount of Rs. 35,000/- has been awarded. To that extent the award of the Labour Court has been modified. The workman- appellant is in appeal. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference because various relevant factors have been taken into account for denying the relief of reinstatement. The services of the workman-appellant were terminated in the year 1987, which is more than 23 years ago and there is no firm finding with regard to availability of work. Accordingly, we uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) November 11, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2