IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.13738 of 2010 in R.A.No.260 of 2010 in C.W.P.No.10489 of 2001 Date of Decision:- 12.11.2010 Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board and anr. ....Petitioner(s) vs. Jaswant singh & others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the review application is condoned. Review application is taken up for hearing. Counsel for applicant-respondent No.3 contends that the order was passed by this Court in the absence of respondent No.3 as the counsel could not put in appearance since he had expired in November, 2008. He contends that the true facts were not brought to the notice of the Court. In support of this contention, he submits that the case of the workman in his demand notice was that he was an employee of the Punjab Water & Sewerage Board, Division No.1.Batala at Fatehgarh Churian w.e.f. 1.1.1991 to 28.2.1993. He contends that if that was his claim before the Court below, then no relief could have been granted against the Municipal Committee/Nagar Council. He contends that the findings which have been recorded by this Court that the Municipal Committee, Fatehgarh Churian, C.M.No.13738 of 2010 in -2- R.A.No.260 of 2010 in C.W.P.No.10489 of 2001 has taken over the work of the Sewerage Board along with the employee in the year 1992 is not correct. He refers to Annexure R-2 which has been filed along with the reply filed by respondent No.3 whereas the resolution passed by the Nagar Council, Fatehgarh Churian on 2.2.1993 wherein it has been recorded that the Nagar Palika will maintain the sewerage and will appoint the staff at its own level. He, on this basis, contends that the letter dated 11.1.1993 (Annexure R-1) which has been made the basis for coming to a conclusion that the services of the workman have been taken over by the Nagar Palika, Fatehgarh Churian, is not sustainable as the subsequent decision does not endorse the same. He further states that the letter subsequently states that in case the work of maintenance of the Sewerage is to be done by the Board, then the funds along with the salary of the employee should be paid by the Nagar Council. He, on this basis, contends that the findings as recorded by the Court are not sustainable and, therefore, the present review application deserves to be allowed. I have heard counsel for the applicant-respondent No.3 and have gone through the records of the case. The contention as raised by the counsel for the applicant- respondent No.3 cannot be accepted for the reason that the date of termination of the services of the workman was 28.2.1993. On the said date, the services of the workman stood transferred to the Nagar Council as per the letter dated 11.1.1993. The resolution which was passed by the respondent does not speak about the decision which has been taken, as to C.M.No.13738 of 2010 in -3- R.A.No.260 of 2010 in C.W.P.No.10489 of 2001 whether the services of the employee were taken over or not. The only thing which has been added therein is that the appointment would be made at its own level. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present review application. Therefore, the same is dismissed. November 12, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE