IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1817 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.02.2011 Mehar Singh Sokhi ...Appellant Versus Guru Nanak Dev University and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. M.K.Dogra, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) CM No. 5455-5456 of 2010 On due consideration of the grounds on which the condonation has been prayed for and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, delay of 96 days in filing and 148 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. LPA No. 1817 of 2010 This appeal is filed against an order dated 23.11.2009 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-Management and setting aside the award of the Industrial Court which was one of re- instatement. Initial appointment of the petitioner which was on adhoc basis and for a period of six months was extended from time to time until the University took a decision not to extend the same any further. Accordingly, the petitioner stood relieved w.e.f. 8.10.1990. This was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 11.10.1990 (Annexure P-5). LPA No. 1817 of 2010 [2] Learned Single Judge took the view that the present is a case where the appellant was relieved on completion of the tenure of his appointment. Therefore, according to the learned Single Judge, discontinuance of the service of the appellant-writ petitioner did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of said expression as appearing in the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge also took note of the basis on which the discontinuance of service was challenged by the appellant namely that he was given no opportunity to explain that the certificate/diploma obtained by him from the Christian Medical Association was otherwise acceptable and valid. In considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge recorded the view that the said question was an incidental one and the same was not the basis for a decision to discontinue the services of the petitioner. From the document enclosed as Annexure P-5 it clearly transpires that discontinuance of the service of the petitioner followed completion of his fixed tenure of service. The authenticity/validity of the certificate/diploma was not taken into account by the University while deciding not to grant any further extension of service to the appellant. If that be so the said discontinuance will not amount to retrenchment and the issue with regard to the validity of the certificate/diploma was not the foundation of the decision to discontinue the service of the appellant. Learned counsel for the for the appellant has urged that in the writ petition filed the Management had sought to justify its stand that the certificate/diploma of the appellant was not authorized. Therefore, according to the learned counsel; the said issue was taken into account while deciding on the extension of the appellant's service. We disagree with the learned counsel. The written statement filed by the Management before the learned Labour Court clearly indicates that the workman was relieved after the term of his service had expired. It was the specific case of the Management that the present is a case of non-renewal of the service tenure. The LPA No. 1817 of 2010 [3] pleadings in the writ petition with regard to the certificate/diploma has, therefore, to be understood to be qua the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court on this score without the same being the case/defence of the Management. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal to warrant admission thereof. Appeal, therefore, is dismissed. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 24.02.2011 'ravinder'