1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2022 of 1991 Date of decision:- 03.12.2010 Market Committee, Dhuri through its Secretary. ......Petitioner Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another. ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) The challenge in the writ petition is against an award dated 06.06.1990 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala in Reference Case No. 21 of 1987. The learned Labour Court, by the aforesaid award, has held the termination of service of the respondent-workman to be in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only). Consequently, it was ordered that the workman be reinstated with full back-wages. Aggrieved, the employer has filed the writ petition. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner-employer. I have perused the award dated 06.06.1990 which indicates that the learned Labour Court, on materials placed before it, came to the finding 2 that the respondent-workman had rendered more than 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months so as to satisfy the definition of continuous service contained in Section 25-B of the Act. In fact, the case of the employer before the learned Labour Court was to the effect that the appointment of the workman, made from time to time, was for a period of 89 days and each of such appointments was preceded by a break-in-service. The learned Labour Court on consideration of the said plea of the employer came to the conclusion that the said fact would not be determinative of the issue of “continuous appointment” of the workman within the meaning of the said expression as appearing in Section 25-B of the Act. On the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Employers in relation to the Digwadih Colliery Vs. Their Workmen, AIR, 1966, P. 75, I am of the view that the said conclusion of the learned Labour Court is correct in law. That apart, while the writ petition has remained pending, according to learned Counsel for the respondent, the respondent- workman has been reinstated in service which has also been regularized. Further, the workman has also earned promotions. In so far as back- wages is concerned the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that he will not press the said issue. In the light of the above facts, the writ petition deserves to be disposed of by upholding the award dated 06.06.1990 passed by the learned Labour Court subject to the condition that the direction for payment of back-wages will be governed by what has been stated before 3 the Court by the learned Counsel for the respondent, as noticed above. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. (RANJAN GOGOI) 03.12.2010 JUDGE Amodh