C.W.P. No.5981 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5981 of 2001 Date of Decision: 07.10.2009 Azad S/o Shish Pal .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing the order rejecting a claim by the workman for adjudication of a dispute before the Labour Court. The contention of the workman through a damand notice was that he had been illegally terminated from service. The Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer had directed notice to be issued to the management and it was reported to have been stated by the management that they were willing to take him back in employment. The workman was, however, not present on the date when the case was posted for hearing before the Labour Commissioner on 05.09.2000. He, therefore, issued a communication to the workman directing him to join the duty and report at the office. The workman complained by means of a letter on 18.09.2000 that although he had showed up at the factory gate as directed by the Labour Commissioner C.W.P. No.5981 of 2001 -2- on 16.09.2000, he was refused entry. He also alleged that he had been pushed down and insulted. He issued a notice again that the offer of employment was not true and that he had been illegally terminated. The Labour Officer rejected the notice on 23.01.2001 holding that the management had not terminated the services and that they were ready to take back him on duty. 2. When the definite complaint of the workman was that in spite of his offer for services by going to the factory on 16.09.2000, he was not permitted to enter and when he made a complaint again to the Labour Commissioner, the Labour Commissioner ought to have taken the complaint and communicated to the management to secure its response. The Labour Commissioner ought not to have treated the response of the management on first notice as response to a situation which the workman complained by a subsequent complaint. The impugned order states that after an enquiry, it revealed that the management had not terminated the services. The nature of alleged enquiry set out in the impugned order is not known. It is not even cited anywhere in that order that the complaint of the workman made on 18.09.2000 was communicated to the management and response was elicited from the management. When a specific complaint had been made by the workman, it ought to have been squarely addressed and the nature of enquiry must have also been referred to in the order itself as a justification if it existed for rejecting the reference. The 4th respondent has not put in appearance in spite of service of notice. 3. The workman cannot be said to be fighting for nothing if only there was a refusal by the management to allow the workman to C.W.P. No.5981 of 2001 -3- resume his duty. The impugned order of Joint Secretary of Government of Haryana dated 23.01.2001 is set aside and the matter referred to the respondent again for fresh consideration on the complaint which the workman had made on 18.09.2000 and on a subsequent date when he had issued a demand notice under Section 2- A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The consideration of his plea shall be made as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date when the copy of this order is received. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 07, 2009 Pankaj*