IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13238 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 14, 2011. Balbir Singh .....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ambala and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Raj Karan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-workman is aggrieved by the award dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, to the extent it declines back wages though he has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service. The petitioner joined the second respondent as a Turner on 21.12.1986. He was thereafter promoted as a Press Operator in the year 1997. The petitioner's services were allegedly terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 1.10.1999, prompting him to raise an industrial dispute which was substantially answered in his favour by the Labour Court, Ambala to the extent noticed above. The solitary question that arises for consideration is 'whether the petitioner is entitled for the back wages'. CWP No.13238 of 2010 [2] It is urged on behalf of respondent No.2-management that the services of the petitioner were never terminated and he was merely transferred to Baddi Unit where he refused to join. It was pointed out that no sooner the award was passed by the Labour Court on 10.02.2006, the petitioner-workman was reinstated on the same day and is continuously working with the management. A preliminary objection is also raised by respondent No.2-management that the writ petition has been filed after a delay of almost four years. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award or to grant any back wages to the petitioner-workman. The Labour Court has categorically held in para No.22 of the impugned award that the petitioner-workman was transferred to Baddi Unit of the respondent-management where he did not join. Thus, the petitioner was held to have been retrenched on a technical ground though there was no intentment of the management to retrench him in violation of the law. The petitioner is a skilled workman having technical know how, it does appear that during the period he refused to join duties at Baddi Unit or till his reinstatement in service at Panchkula, he must have been gainfully employed. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, no interference with the impugned award is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. November 14, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE