C.W.P. No.1580 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1580 of 1986 Date of Decision: 20.11.2009 2. C.W.P. No.1581 of 1986 The Majhuke Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala another ....Respondents Present: Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate for Mr. T.S. Sangha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sikha Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Both the writ petitions are at the instance of the same Cooperative Society. The respective workmen in both the cases had been complaining that their services had been terminated without complying with statutory mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, although they had respectively completed 240 days of continuous service prior to the termination. The management sought to contend that it was not a factory within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act and that further the C.W.P. No.1580 of 1986 -2- respective workmen had remained absent from duty voluntarily. The Labour Court found that, by judging the nature of activities that the Society was engaged in, it answered the description of an industry and the resort to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act was justified. On the admitted position that the workmen had completed 240 days of service, the only issue that had to be seen was whether the workmen had deliberately absented themselves. The Court found that the absence as pleaded by the management had not been established and even an absence itself could not have been a ground for termination of the services unless an automatic termination is contemplated either by the provisions of the relevant Standing Orders or by virtue of the absence for such a long period it was possible to infer an abandonment of service. The Labour Court, therefore, found that the termination of service was not justified and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. 2. At the time when the petition was admitted, it appears from the record that the management had obtained a benefit of stay, subject, however, to the payment of the benefits under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is not possible to secure any definite information whether there had been at all times a due compliance or whether the workmen had been reinstated at any other time later. The cases are of the year 1986 and to provide for full wages for all the period for 23 years for no C.W.P. No.1580 of 1986 -3- work done by them, will not be appropriate. Even while dismissing the writ petitions, I modify the award passed by the Labour Court to admit to the workmen only 50% back wages. 2. The awards of the Labour Court granting them reinstatement with continuity of service are confirmed and there shall be a modification only as regards the back wages which is restricted to 50%. 3. The writ petitions are dismissed, however, with the modification as stated above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 20, 2009 Pankaj*