IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9657 of 2000 Date of decision:27.08.2009 Chandigarh Industrial Tourism Development Corporation ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Parveen K. Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Arvind Seth, Advocate, for respondent No.2 ---- 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 award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages. The reference was answered in favour of the workman accepting his contention that between the period 20.12.1993 when he was appointed to the date of his termination on 10.08.1994, he had more than 240 days of continuous service, but there had been deliberate breaks in service for a few days only to prevent the workman from claiming the benefit of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was the contention of the workman that the management had indulged in unfair trade practice, which the Labour Court accepted and finding that there had been a non-compliance of Section 25-F made the award as mentioned above. Civil Writ Petition No.9657 of 2000 - 2 - 2. It is admitted that the Labour Court's award was given effect and that the workman was being taken back in employment and continues to work. It is also his contention that even the claim for back wages had been enforced by him. Having regard to the fact that the workman is still in service from the date when the matter is taken up and the availability of work being not in dispute, I do not think, it is necessary to have a different look at the matter than how it had been dealt with by the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court, under the circumstances, is confirmed and the writ petition challenging the same, is dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.08.2009 sanjeev