IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.6018 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 TARLOCHAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. PC Goyal, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 4.3.2010 (Annexure P-10) whereby the order of regularisation of service of the petitioner as Pump Operator has been rescinded and withdrawn. The petitioner has been reverted to the original post of Pump Operator, while considering the date of appointment of the petitioner as Pump Operator as 1.6.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner joined the respondents as Store Coolie on 1.9.1987. The petitioner continued to serve the respondents, however, the post was re- Civil Writ Petition No.6018 of 2010 2 designated as Store Ledger Keeper and so on. The service of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 1.9.1993, whereupon the petitioner carried the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The respondents gave a statement before the Tribunal to the following effect:- “The management is ready to reinstate the workman with continuity of service but without back wages. The workman may join duty w.e.f. 1.6.2001. The management will give Class-III alternative post on daily wages.” In accordance with the statement, the matter was disposed of by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar, vide order dated 2.6.2001, with the following directions:- “3. So, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the reference is answered in favour of the workman and against the management who is enjoined upon to reinstate the workman with continuity of service but without back wages. No order as to costs.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in such circumstances, the seniority of the petitioner has to be taken into account as Pump Operator with effect from 1.9.1987 because the respondents had given a statement that they would give an alternative post to the petitioner on daily wage basis. The post of Pump Operator was an alternative post to the post of Store Coolie, on which post the petitioner had joined on 1.9.1987. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has very fairly stated that the respondents would consider the case of the petitioner as if the petitioner had joined as Pump Operator on 1.9.1987 and considering the continuity of the petitioner from that date, regularise the service of the Civil Writ Petition No.6018 of 2010 3 petitioner, in accordance with the policy of the State. In view of the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-State, the petition is disposed of. September 16, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?