IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12391 of 2001. Date of Decision : January 30, 2009. Talib Hussain .... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad, and another. ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner-workman. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the respondent-company. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 21.03.2001 (Annexure-P-14), passed by the Labour Court, Faridabad-II. Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the Labour Court has on going through the documents given a finding that the workman had earlier been working with the respondent-company before his date of termination, and therefore, meager compensation of Rs. 18,000/- has already been granted to him although he had worked for about three years with the respondent-company. C.W.P. No. 12391 of 2001. The facts which come out from the petition are that the petitioner-workman was appointed on 18.09.1992 and he continued with the respondent-company till 31.12.1994. What has been contended by the respondent-company is that the petitioner-workman had applied afresh, vide his application dated 30.06.1994 and on the basis of that application, the workman was appointed as Despatch Assistant. It has been stated in the appointment letter that the petitioner-workman would be on probation for a period of six months which could further be extended. It has further come on record that the petitioner-workman continued in service till his services were terminated on 31.12.1994. The contention of respondent- company is that services of the petitioner-workman were terminated in accordance with his appointment letter dated 05.07.1994 which is placed on record as Ex. M.1. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner-workman had earlier also worked with the respondent-company for which no compensation was granted, the Labour Court taking a sympathetic view, has proceeded to grant him compensation of Rs. 18,000/- to settle equities between the parties. I am in agreement with the award passed by the Labour Court and do not find any illegality which would enable me to interfere in the present petition. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the draft which was earlier sent to the petitioner-workman has not been received by him. In view of this position, counsel for the respondent-company states that the draft of Rs. 18,000/- as compensation awarded by the Labour Court, would be handed over to counsel for the petitioner within a period of twenty days from today. -2- C.W.P. No. 12391 of 2001. Counsel for the petitioner-workman accepts this submission of counsel for the respondent-company. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, I dismiss the same. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 30,2009. sjks. -3-