LPA No.123 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.03.2009 The Meham Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. ............ Appellant versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL. -.- Present: Mr.S.B.Kaushik, Amicus Curiae, for appellant. - - - UMA NATH SINGH, J. This LPA arises out of a judgment dated 7.1.2009, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.20749 of 2008 affirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. It appears that the workman was appointed as a Mason on 21.10.1992 on daily wages. During the service period, his work and conduct was found satisfactory with no complaint against him. His services were terminated on 28.2.1994 by giving oral order and without assigning any reason. The workman had completed more than 240 days in a calender year and therefore, he was entitled to be heard before visited with any punishment. This amounted to an unfair labour practice on the part of Management as the service of workman was terminated without any notice and compensation in lieu of retrenchment. Thus, the Management was found to have violated the provisions of Sections 25G & 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, it was also found that the juniors to the LPA No.123 of 2009 2 workman like one Jai Bhagwan were still working with the Management which resulted in violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, held the workman to be entitled for reinstatement on his post without any back wages and the reference was also found to be maintainable. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the award on the concession made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Sugar Mill. We have carefully heard the Amicus Curiae and perused the appeal records. We do not find any ground to hold that the position of Management has improved in the appeal. Once the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of concession made by learned counsel for the petitioner-Sugar Mill and in the Tribunal, the workman earned the award by leading sufficient evidence to establish that he worked for more than 240 days in one calender year and his juniors were still retained in service, this LPA deserves to be dismissed. Hence, it is hereby dismissed. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 17.03.2009 (A.N.JINDAL) *mohinder JUDGE Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not? YES/NO