C.W.P No.467 of 1998 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.467 of 1998 Date of Decision: 21.07.2009 Sanat Kumar Ray .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Awasthi, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition is against the order passed by the Labour Court in a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) by the workman. The only grievance expressed on behalf of the petitioner is that after the initial claim had been made for Rs.52,670/- that comprised of salary from March, 1993 to September, 1994 and for medical allowance and interest, the claimant sought for an amendment for additional sums to the tune of over Rs.5,37,362/- on the basis that he was entitled to salary at the same rate mentioned above from 1994 to 2000 that is for about five and half years in lieu of the claim to voluntary retirement that was refused. The amount claimed additionally was alleged to be a consequential entitlement for the period upto which he would have C.W.P No.467 of 1998 -2 served if he had not been removed from service. There were other claims for dearness allowance, bonus etc. during the very same period. The Labour Court that passed an order in the claim petition adjudged the petitioner's entitlement only for the unamended claim petition and had not addressed the petitioner's entitlement or otherwise to the amended portions of his claim petition. After the order was originally pronounced on 12.09.1997, an application for correction of the order had been filed, referring to the omission to the amended claims. The Labour Court disposed of the application on 19.11.1997 stating that there was no ground to review it and the applicant could file a fresh application under Section 33-C(2). In other words, the Labour Court did not adjudicate on the amended claim but left it for fresh adjudication by independent proceedings. 2. From the day when the order was passed by the Labour Court to the date when this writ petition is undertaken more than a decade has passed and perhaps, if the petitioner had filed his own independent application, it should have been disposed of by now. To a suggestion as to why the petitioner shall not resort to an independent application, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had already given his evidence and the management had also filed its written statement and therefore, a fresh petition and evidence would be a needless duplication of effort. He states that he will not make any new pleadings or let in any additional evidence and that the claim made through the amended petition which was not considered by the first order of the Labour Court alone could be taken up and disposed of. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent C.W.P No.467 of 1998 -3 states that he still has evidence to let in the amended portion of the claim made by the workman. 3. Without commenting on the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to the heads of claims made in para 2 clauses (b) to (k) in the amended claim form (Annexure P-6 in the writ petition), the matter is remitted to the Labour Court, Jalandhar for a fresh consideration on the heads of claims that have not been adjudicated upon. Having regard to the fact the claim had been made as early as in the year 1995, the Labour Court is requested to give two effective dates of hearing for the management to let in evidence both oral and documentary, and dispose of the case on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date when the records are received by the Labour Court. 4. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 12.08.2009. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 21, 2009 Pankaj*