IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13996 of 1992 Date of decision: 18.07.2011 The Command Area Development Authority ...Petitioner Versus The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner-Management has impugned the award passed by the labour Court dated 03.08.1992 whereby the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated. While admitting the writ petition, the implementation of the impugned award was stayed subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. While the writ petition was pending, the respondents- workman moved an application before this Court that he has been permitted to join the duties but was being paid wages as was last drawn. This application was considered and allowed by the Court on 12.08.1993. The operative part of the order reads as under:- “ After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the stand taken by the management clearly goes to Civil Writ Petition No. 13996 of 1992 -2- show that the respondent-workman is marking his presence in the attendance register of the management and this he could not be except when he was permitted to do so. This shows that the workman was allowed to join his duties despite the order of stay passed by this Court. Whether the management is getting any work from him or not, is the concern of the management. Once he is being allowed to mark his presence, it has to be taken that he is in the service of the management. This being so, he is entitled not to the wages last drawn by him but also to the wages he is entitled to in terms of the award. The dispute regarding payment of back wages is not raised in this petition. For the period the workman has been allowed to mark his presence, he is clearly entitled to current wages. In the circumstances, I direct the management to pay to the workman the wages at the current rate as long as he continues in the service of the management or till such time his services are terminated in accordance with law. This application is disposed of accordingly.” This would obviously show that the petitioner was taken back in service and was held entitled to the current wages. This position has continued ever since the year 1993. The counsel for the parties are, however, not aware of the present status of the petitioner as to whether he is in service or has superannuated or whether he has continued in the service or not. Once the petitioner was permitted to join the service and was allowed current wages, no necessity may remain to go into the challenge raised against the Civil Writ Petition No. 13996 of 1992 -3- labour Court award. Once the labour Court award has been implemented by reinstating the respondent-workman, it may not be fair at this stage to dislodge the workman. In view of the above position, the writ petition apparently has become infructuous. It is, accordingly, disposed of as such. Since the counsel for the petitioner is not aware of the present factual position, the petitioner may make an application for reviving this writ petition, if the factual petition is different than noticed above. Dismissed as rendered infructuous. July 18, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE