LPA No. 1195 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.1195 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 14.11.2011 Niranjan Singh . Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court II Faridabad and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Vibhav Jain, Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 6.8.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that termination of the appellant was patently against law because once a reference is pending then the order of termination without permission of the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal would be without jurisdiction and unsustainable in the eyes of law. In this regard, learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd v. Ram Gopal Sharma (2002) 2 SCC 244. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court upholding the punishment of termination on the basis of enquiry has been set aside. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and are of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are unexceptionable. It has come on record that Reference No. 176 of 1989 was pending before the Labour Court and the LPA No. 1195 of 2011 2 order of termination was passed on 26.11.1996 without seeking any permission from the Labour Court. The aforesaid factual position is apparently conceded by the counsel for the workman-appellant. However, Mr.Vibhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant-workman, has argued that the workman is entitled to payment of back wages also. The learned Single Judge has reinstated the workman and the award of the Labour Court has been set aside. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of back wages nor any factor in support of the aforesaid claim has been pointed out. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge not call for interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Augustine George Masih) 14.11.2011 Judge okg