C.W.P No. 2549 of 1990 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2549 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : November 19, 2010 Panipat Co.op Sugar Mills Ltd. Panipat ...... Petitioner, v. The Presiding Officer, labour Court Ambala and another ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Labour Court whereby respondent No.2 has been awarded wages from 19.1.1984 to 9.4.1984 amounting to ` 3250/-, retaining allowance for the year 1982-83 amounting to ` 3000/-, and bonus for the year 1982-83 amounting to ` 600/-. Brief facts are that respondent No.2 applied for leave from 20.11.1983 to 19.1.1984. The leave was rejected and he received an intimation about the same. As per the case of the petitioner, respondent No.2 joined duty only on 9.4.1984 and in a domestic inquiry held as per the Rules, his unauthorized absence was established from 19.1.1984 to C.W.P No. 2549 of 1990 (O&M) ::2:: 9.4.1984. As per the petitioner, for this gross dereliction of duty, respondent No.2 could have been dismissed from service since this absence was at the height of crushing season. However, taking a lenient view, it was ordered that the period of his absence from duty be treated as leave without pay and he would not be entitled to any benefits of retaining allowance etc. for the earlier season. The Labour Court held that immediately after receipt of intimation regarding rejection of his leave, respondent No.2 appeared for duty on 18.1.1984 and again on 19.1.1984 but was not allowed to join duty till 9.4.1984. Holding this fact, the Labour Court held that respondent No.2 was entitled for the said salary. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that an application under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not lie at all. In fact, the only option before respondent No.2 would have been to seek a reference for setting aside the punishment order which was never done. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly states that even though this position may not be entirely legally incorrect, it cannot be lost sight of that this Court is sitting in extra-ordinary jurisdiction and that the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court (that respondent No.2 had presented himself on 18th and 19th of January, 1984) has not been controverted in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has countered by arguing that respondent No.2 infact only came and handed over the application but was not interested in joining. This finding of fact cannot be termed to be perverse or against the evidence. Thus, even if the contention regarding jurisdiction is C.W.P No. 2549 of 1990 (O&M) ::3:: accepted, it has to be held that respondent No.2 did present himself on 18th and 19th of January, 1984 in response to the intimation whereby his leave was rejected. In the circumstances, the award of wages for this period cannot be held to be unjustified. However, the conduct of the workman in proceeding on un-sanctioned leave at the height of crushing season can also not be condoned in the fashion that it has been so done by the Labour Court. In the circumstances, the award of retaining allowance and bonus for the year 1982-83 was rightly denied to the petitioner and consequently was wrongly awarded by the Labour Court. In these circumstances, the award of wages for the period 19.1.1984 to 9.4.1984 is upheld, while the award of retaining allowance as well as bonus amounting to ` 3000/- and ` 600/- respectively is set aside. It may be noticed that the following interim order was passed on 13.7.1990 :- “ Written statement has been filed. Copy thereof has been supplied to the counsel opposite. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the ad-interim stay order dated May 6, 1990 is made absolute. However, in case the writ petition fails the petitioner will pay the amount awarded to the respondent with interest @ 12%. Hearing in the writ petition be expedited.” In consequence thereof, the wages shall be paid to the workman with interest @ 12% w.e.f 9.4.1984. Respondent No.2, through his counsel, is directed to present himself before the petitioner on 23.12.2010 for taking the said benefit. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 19, 2010. JUDGE C.W.P No. 2549 of 1990 (O&M) ::4:: `kk'