CWP No.3554 of 1989 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3554 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.09.2011 Roop Kumar Sindhwani S/o Sh. T.D. Sindhwani, Accounts Officer (H.O.) and others. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana through the Secretary Department of Agriculture, Haryana Civil Secretariat, at Chandigarh and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:None for the parties. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1 The writ petition is at the instance of 9 persons working in the Accounts Branch in Haryana Seeds Development Corporation. It came to be filed at a time when the Corporation had passed a resolution to terminate the services on the ground that there were huge accumulated loss and it shall not be viable to keep them in employment. The petitioners' contention had been that a Committee was constituted by the respondent- Corporation to identify surplus force in the Corporation to cut CWP No.3554 of 1989 (O&M) [2] down expenses. The Committee had identified 47 such posts out of which 5 posts were in the Accounts Branch. The grievance was that if at all there was a retrenchment, it could be done only in the manner provided under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After the writ petition was filed, the Bench of this Court admitted the same and issued notice of application regarding stay. For whatever reason, if the Court had not granted stay, when actually the prayer had been that they were apprehending termination of service, it is not possible for me to conclude what has come of their services over these two decades. If, they have continued in service, they cannot come to any harm. If they have already been terminated, they cannot also secure reinstatement at this length of time. The petition has become infructuous, especially when no information has come from the petitioners. No relief is possible of being granted in this writ petition. 2. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE