CWP No.1440 of 1988 and CWP No.10334 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 28, 2011 (1) CWP No.1440 of 1988 Subhash Chander and others …..Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and another ….Respondents (2) CWP No.10334 of 1988 Jai Chand and others …..Petitioners Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Advocate for respondent No.2. K. KANNAN, J(ORAL) 1. Both the writ petitions challenge the correctness of the order rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners for re-opening the cases which were dismissed by the labour Court. Respective references to the Labour Court appear to be on disputes raised by the workmen alleging the termination of service as not in accordance with law, but the petitioners claimed that they had no notice of the reference by the State to the labour Court and their absence on the date when the cases have been called had been on account of for want of knowledge regarding reference and pendency of the - 1- CWP No.1440 of 1988 and CWP No.10334 of 1988 cases before the labour court. It so happened on the date when the applications were moved, more than 30 days had lapsed and the order of dismissal had come to be published in the gazette as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Cour, therefore, held that after the publication it had become functous officio and it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. 2. There is a preponderance of judicial pronouncements that allow for Courts to entertain the application and where they have not done, the High Courts in the respective jurisdiction under Article 226 have allowed for restoration of cases which are disposed of otherwise than on merits, if reasonable cause for non-appearance had been shown. To my mind, the whole exercise has become purely academic, considering the course that have taken place over a period of three decades and more. The counsel for the respondent states that the respondent management itself has ceased to exit and the factory was closed, later transferred to another establishment which has also closed down its operation. Neither the issue of reinstatement nor the issue of payment of compensation for all these workmen who have not rendered any service could obtain any relevance at that point of time. I do not propose to examine the case and find an occasion to remit the case for fresh disposal. It would be an act that is brutum fulmen in nature. 3. The writ petitions are consequently dismissed. 28.11.2011 (K. KANNAN) vcgarg JUDGE - 2- CWP No.1440 of 1988 and CWP No.10334 of 1988 - 3-