C.W.P No.6454 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.6454 of 1999 Date of Decision:27.07.2009 Dharam Pal .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court admitting the reference only partially to provide for compensation and upholding the order of retrenchment passed by the management. While doing so, the Labour Court found that the post of a Clerk was not available and he was not entitled to be reinstated. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the workman would argue that the Labour Court had found the retrenchment to be bad, awarded compensation only on the ground that there was no sanctioned post available and he could not have been reinstated. This reasoning is shown to be bad by the conduct of the management in making a fresh appointment on 04.08.1998 to a person who has been arrayed as 4th C.W.P No.6454 of 1999 -2- respondent in the writ petition. The fresh appointment had been made prior to the date of the order on 24.09.1998. It meant that on the day when the Labour Court was delivering its judgment, it was acting on wrong impression that there was no post available to which he could have been reinstated. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the management would submit that at the time when the evidence was led and at the time when the arguments were made, there had been really no post but as per the proceedings of the Managing Director of the Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited, if there were loans outstanding were more than Rs.25 lacs upto Rs.30 lacs, there was a sanction for appointment of one Clerk. This occasion, empowering the society to appoint a Clerk, arose during the pendency of the proceedings and the appointment was made on 04.08.1999 of a person, who was better qualified and who was Post-graduate. The workman was but merely a matriculate and therefore, the management was justified in appointing a person, who was more qualified. 4. It must be borne in mind that the award of the Labour Court finding that the termination of the workman to be not valid has not been challenged by the management in any proceedings. The writ petition has been filed only at the instance of the workman in so far as it awarded to him merely a right of compensation and not admitting his claim for reinstatement. As far as the management was concerned, that award had become final. If it is an admitted fact that on the date when the award was passed on 24.09.1998, the society had become eligible to recruit one person to the post of a Clerk, consistent with the C.W.P No.6454 of 1999 -3- finding that the retrenchment of the workman was bad, it was bound to have been considered the petitioner for reinstatement. The Labour Court could not have passed the award in the manner it did, if only it had been apprised that there was a post available to which the workman who had found to have been wrongly retrenched, was bound to be considered for reinstatement. The award that disentitles the workman to the relief of reinstatement is set aside, granting to the workman right to reinstatement with continuity of service. However, having regard to the fact that society had engaged another person and also paying the salary and the workman himself had not done any work during that period, the workman shall not be entitled to any back wages. 5. The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 27, 2009 Pankaj*