IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14438 of 1995 Date of decision:13.07.2009 The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala ...Respondents and another Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Chohan, Advocate, for the respondent No.2. --- 2. Civil Writ Petition No.16609 of 1998 Varinder Singh ....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala ....Respondents and another. Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, with Mr. Pankaj Chohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. --- 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. By the award dated 17.05.1995, the Labour Court, Patiala, had found the termination of services of the workman on 18.09.1978 to be illegal and directed reinstatement, however, without back wages. The management challenged the award insofar as the Civil Writ Petition No.14438 of 1995 - 2 - impugned award granted the relief of reinstatement in CWP No.14438 of 1995 and the workman challenged the award in CWP No.16609 of 1998 insofar as it disallowed the back wages. 2. The Labour Court considered the fact that the workman was working as a fitter upto 17.12.1978. It was an admitted case that the workman had remained absent from duty for more than 10 days without sanctioned leave. The Labour Court, however, reasoned that even in a case where the workman had lost his lien, the termination could not be effected without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. While so holding, the Labour Court had relied upon a judgment in State Bank of India Versus Shri N. Sunder Money-AIR 1976 SC 1111, and directed reinstatement. The award is well reasoned and calls for no interference. 3. As regards the prayer for back wages which was disallowed by the Labour Court, it had good reasons to do so. In view of the fact that the workman admittedly had been terminated in October 1978 and a reference was sought only in the year 1988 i.e. nearly 10 years after the impugned order of termination, there was undue delay that was caused by the conduct of the workman himself and therefore, there was also a justification for disallowing back wages. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the workman submits that as a matter of subsequent event to the passing of the award, the workman was also reinstated in service and he had served the management and retired after he attained the age of superannuation. Civil Writ Petition No.14438 of 1995 - 3 - 5. The award of the Labour Court is in full conformity with law and facts that gave rise to the reference. Both the writ petitions are dismissed confirming the award passed by the Labour Court, Patiala. The workman shall be fully entitled to retiral benefits, consequent on the affirmation that the original order of the termination was illegal and that he was entitled to the reinstated. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.07.2009 sanjeev