IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11851 of 2009. Date of Decision : April 29, 2010. Ram Kumar ...... Petitioners . Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, and others ..... Respondents . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, vide which the reference had been answered against the petitioner/Workman. Counsel for the petitioner/Workman contends that the Workman is entitled to reinstatement in service in the light of the fact that the respondent/Management had not pleaded before the Labour Court that the appointment of the Workman was de hors the statutory Rules, governing the service. He contends that the judgment which had been relied upon by the Labour Court for holding so, cannot be pressed into service in the light of the absence of any pleadings or objections on the part of the respondent/Management before the Labour Court. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) 14078 of 2009) decided on 13.01.2010 titled as Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana. C.W.P. No. 11851 of 2009. -2- His further contention is that the petitioner/Workman in any case would be entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement for the period he had put in service with the respondent/Management. In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Telecom District Manager and others Versus Kesheb Deb 2008 (4) SCT 33 , and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Ishwar Singh and another, 2008 (3) SCT 788. He further contends that no finding has been recorded by the Labour Court as to what would be date of appointment of the petitioner/Workman with the respondent/Management, which would be essential for determining the length of service of the petitioner/Workman with the respondent/Management. He on this basis contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Management contends that the Labour Court has rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioner/Workman is not entitled to any relief and the finding recorded by the Labour Court is based upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. Counsel for the respondent/Management contends that the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner/Workman in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the finding given by the Labour Court was with regard to nature of appointment of the Workman. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. I am of the considered view that the case deserves to be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication in the light of the submissions C.W.P. No. 11851 of 2009. -3- made by counsel for the parties. The finding with regard to date of appointment of the petitioner/Workman would also be relevant for effective adjudication and relief to the petitioner/Workman. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure-P-4) is hereby set aside. A direction is issued to the Labour Court, Ambala, to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Ambala, on 28.05.2010. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE April 29, 2010. sjks.