Crl. Revision No. 1529 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1529 of 2005(O&M) Date of Decision : 20.01.2011 Darshan Lal ..... Petitioner Versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamunanagar .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(Oral) Challenge is to the order dated June 13th, 2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, whereby, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar (for short – “the respondent”) was discharged in a Complaint filed under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”), because there was no sufficient ground to proceed against him. 2. Darshan Lal – petitioner was a Carpenter in Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar. His services were terminated. He challenged the order of termination under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act. During the pendency of the reference before Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala (Camp at Jagadhri), the matter was amicably settled between the petitioner and the respondent in the Lok Adalat to the effect that the respondent had undertaken to reinstate the petitioner with effect from December 12th, 1992 by giving him all consequential benefits of continuity of service with effect from November Ist, 1985 as Carpenter but without back-wages. The claim Crl. Revision No. 1529 of 2005 2 of back-wages was given up by the petitioner. By award dated September 12th, 1992, the Presiding Officer answered the reference in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 3. The State through Labour Inspector, Yamuna Nagar filed complaint against the respondent under Section 29 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri on the ground that compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court dated September 12th, 1992 was not made. In response to the complaint, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar filed reply averring that the petitioner was appointed as Carpenter with effect from December 12th, 1992 and as such, the award was complied with. 4. In view of this, the impugned order dated June 13th, 2005 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. 5. Dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 20.1.2011 som