IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 620 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.08.2010 M/s Wadsons India (P) Ltd. …Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 18.2.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWP No. 6412 of 2009, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had challenged the award dated 6.2.2009 (P-2), passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad, whereby respondent No. 2-Workman has been reinstated with continuity of service along with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. The learned Single Judge has recorded categorical finding that the plea of abandonment advanced by the appellant-Management has LPA No. 620 of 2010 (O&M) remained unsubstantiated because respondent No. 2-Workman was not permitted by the Security Guard of the appellant-Management from entering the premises of the company. In that regard, statement of Shri Anil Sharma, WW-3 has been relied upon, which remained dislodged. It has also been concluded by the Labour Court that respondent No. 2-Workman had completed 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of his termination and there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). Accordingly, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the award of the Labour Court, which has reinstated respondent No. 2-Workman with continuity in service with 50% back wages. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the considered view that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is un-exceptionable and does not call for interference. Once the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have been violated and there are categorical findings that respondent No. 2-Workman has completed 240 days, there is no scope for us to interfere in the aforesaid view. We are further of the view that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court by awarding 50% back wages can also not be interfered with because being the Court of trial it is in better position to appreciate the evidence and record findings. For the view taken by us we sought support from the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192. Reminding the Courts that they are bound to consider and interpret the provisions of the Act and other similar legislative instruments in the light of the guidelines set 2 LPA No. 620 of 2010 (O&M) out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the Directive Principles of the State policy contained in Part-IV of the Constitution including Articles 38, 39A to E, 43 and 43A. In that case the award of the Labour Court reinstating the workman with 50% of back wages was set aside by this Court by ignoring the parameters laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution. The aforesaid view has also been followed and applied in the case of Krishan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 637. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) August 31, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3