C.W.P. No.2711 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2711 of 1990 Date of Decision: 18.11.2010 The Mullanpur Co-op. Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited, Mullanpur (Ludhiana). ……Petitioner VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana and another ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Ms. Upasna Dogra, Advocate for Mr. V. G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the award dated 29.3.1989 passed by learned Labour Court whereby learned Labour Court, in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act awarded an amount of Rs.7003.40/- as salary to respondent No.2. The facts are that the respondent No.2-Workman was C.W.P. No.2711 of 1990 -2- dismissed from service on 25.8.1976. His appeal against dismissal order was allowed and the said order was set aside. The petitioner challenged that appellate order by way of filing a civil writ petition which was also dismissed on 31.5.1983 and thereafter respondent No.2 was offered appointment w.e.f. 10.08.1983. It is for this period that he sought his wages. Though many arguments have been raised in the petition yet the fact remains that as against the claim of Rs.70,000/- respondent No.2 was actually awarded an amount of Rs.7003.40/-. This recovery was also stayed as far back as on 5.3.1990. Apart from the fact that the amount involved is extremely little I find that the award of the learned Labour Court is a speaking award where he has dealt with all the contentions raised by the present petitioner. The conclusions drawn by the learned Labour Court cannot be termed to be arbitrary. Keeping in mind the fact that ultimately the award was only for an amount of Rs.7003.40/- I deem it appropriate to dismiss this petition. The petition is dismissed. The respondent No.2 shall be entitled to the recovery alongwith 6% interest up to the date when the payment was made to him. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 18, 2010 JUDGE ashish