C.W.P.No.18041 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18041 of 2000 Date of Decision: 26.08.2009 AIIMS .....Petitioner Versus Devi Singh and others ....Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the respondents. 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. The writ petition challenges the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages upto an extent of 30%. The writ petition refers to a workman whose case was taken along with similarly placed five other workmen of all who were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages. Learned counsel appearing for the workman brings to my attention that apart from the workman, who is a party in the writ petition, the very same petitioner namely AIIMS had challenged the respective awards passed in favour of the other workmen and they had been disposed of by this Hon'ble Court in AIIMS and another Vs. Attar Singh and others 2000(1) RSJ 112 decided on 05.11.1999. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had dealt with the objections of the management that the appropriate Government was only the Central Government since AIIMS had been established by a centre statute. The C.W.P.No.18041 of 2000 -2- Division Bench had rejected that contention by holding that the matter has to be considered with reference to where the cause of action had arisen and finding that the workman was working at Ballabgarh within Haryana State, the reference could have been only made by the Haryana State Government. Similarly on the objection relating to a direction for reinstatement in a case of daily wager who had completed 240 days of service, the Hon'ble Division Bench affirmed the ruling of the Labour Court that once it was shown that 240 days of service had been completed and when it was also seen that the workman could not be said to have been employed only to meet the temporary need of short duration, the appropriate relief will be only one of reinstatement. Two principal contentions which have been dealt with by the Division Bench, according to learned counsel for the workman, will squarely govern this case as well. The learned counsel states that SLP had been filed against the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench and it was also dismissed. 2. Learned counsel also states that pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, the workman has been reinstated and he has been in continuous service. Having regard to the decision of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, which has become final on matters which are raised in this writ petition, the award of the Labour Court shall have to be only confirmed and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 26, 2009 Pankaj* C.W.P.No.18041 of 2000 -3-