CWP No. 10213 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10213 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.03.2010 Tarsem Chand s/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Chief Engineer, Drainage, Punjab Hydel Building and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the Award dated 01.06.2009 (Annexure P-A) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding him not entitled to reinstatement in service but is held entitled to a lump- sum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. CWP No. 10213 of 2009 2 Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court does not take into consideration the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the persons junior to the workman-petitioner were retained in service. He has placed on record the list of the employees, who were subsequently employed, which is Ex. W-2 before the Labour Court. He contends that in the light of the evidence led by the petitioner, the petitioner was able to prove that the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with. He, therefore, contends that the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. His further contention is that the case deserves to be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that even the petitioner-workman has not completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and the Labour Court has erred in calculating the days while coming to a conclusion that the workman had completed 240 days in service with the respondents-Management. She also, therefore, contends that the Award be set aside. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the light of the specific assertion, which has been made by the counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the claim of the workman with regard to the violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act and he has led evidence demonstrating that the persons junior to him were retained in service, the Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The contention of the counsel for the respondents also that the workman does CWP No. 10213 of 2009 3 not complete 240 days in service and he has wrongly been given the benefit by the Labour Court, also deserves to be reconsidered by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the Award dated 01.06.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Patiala (Annexure P-A) is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the Labour Court, Patiala. A direction is issued to the Labour Court, Patiala to reconsider the claim of the petitioner as also the contention of the counsel for the respondents and on consideration of the same, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Patiala, on 22.04.2010. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE March 19, 2010 pj