LPA No. 1176 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1176 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.02.2011 Diocese of Amritsar of the Church of North India ...Appellant Versus Rashid Masih and others ..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 : Mrs. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) With the consent of the parties, the appeal has been taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of by this order. The appellant-writ petitioner had instituted a Civil Writ Petition i.e. No. 4097 of 2005 challenging an award dated 30.08.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Amritsar, by which the respondent-workman was reinstated in service with 50% back wages. In the writ petition filed, the award of the learned Labour Court was challenged, inter-alia, on the ground that the appellant is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes LPA No. 1176 of 2009 (O&M) [2] Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) and the respondent No.1 was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the aforesaid Act. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 11.08.2009 taking the view that in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties in a suit for damages filed by the workman, the entitlement of the workman for reinstatement and back wages had been settled. Infact, the learned Single Judge exhaustively referred to the said compromise and quoted the relevant terms thereof. Consequently, the learned Single Judge had no occasion to go into the question as to whether the appellant is an industry and the respondent is a workman. Before us, it has been submitted that though compensation in terms of the compromise amounting to ` 1,20,000/- has been paid to the workman and he was also granted wages upon reinstatement from May, 2006 to September, 2006, subsequent thereto, the workman has not worked and no wages have been paid to him. While the learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the said situation has occurred as the workman voluntarily refused to resume his duties on one pretext or the other, according to the workman, it is the appellant who is responsible for the said state of affairs. It would thus appear that the entitlement of the respondent No.1 to render duties after September, 2006 and his entitlement for wages from the end of September, 2006 to the current date would still be a live issue. Therefore, the said live issue would necessarily has to be determined by an answer to the question raised by the appellant as LPA No. 1176 of 2009 (O&M) [3] to whether it is an “industry” and the respondent “workman” falls within the meaning of the said expression as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As the said issue has not been answered by the learned Single Judge for the reasons already noticed we are of the view that the same would require an answer at this stage. The appeal, therefore, is disposed of and the writ petition is remanded to the learned Single Judge for an adjudication on the aforesaid points following which the entitlement of the respective parties will follow. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 14.02.2011 'ravinder'