WRIT PETITION 11344 of 1994 on 25 April 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 11344 of 1994 (O/M).Date of Decision : April 16, 2009.

Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Chandigarh.

....... Petitioner.

Versus.

The Presiding Officer, Indsutrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon, and another.

....... Respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:-Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate,for the petitioner.

Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate,for the respondent No. 2.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

C.M. No. 3517 of 2009.

Counsel for the parties state that the main writ petition may beheard and decided.

With the consent of counsel for the parties, the main case istaken up for final disposal.

C.W.P. No. 11344 of 1994.

An award dated 25.04.1994 (Annexure-P-16), came to be passedin favour of the respondent No. 2-workman, holding him entitled toreinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages. Thesaid award was challenged by the petitioner-management before this Courtthrough the present writ petition but as no stay was granted, the respondent No. 2-workman was taken back in service, vide order dated 24.09.1994. Theworkman continued with his service and during the pendency of the writpetition, vide order dated 19.05.2004, the services of the respondent No. 2-workman have been regularised w.e.f. 01.10.2003, as per the Governmentpolicy.

In this view of the matter, the question with regard toreinstatement in service of the respondent No.2-workman have beenrendered infructuous. However, counsel for the petitioner-managementcontends that full back wages should have been granted to the respondentNo.2-workman from the date of his retrenchment as the same was held not inconsonance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 2-workmansubmits that since the provisions as contained in Section 25-N of theIndustrial Disputes Act have not been complied with, therefore, therespondent No.2-workman is held entitled to reinstatement in service andhas been rightly granted by the Labour Court.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through therecords of the case. It is a matter of fact which is admitted that therespondent No. 2-workman was retrenched from service. The provisions ascontained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied withbut since the provisions as contained in Section 25-N of the IndustrialDisputes Act were applicable to the petitioner, the same having not beencomplied with, the retrenchment of the respondent No. 2-workman was notin consonance with the Industrial Disputes Act. In these peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case, it would be just and equitable that full back wageswhich have been granted to the respondent No. 2-workman by the Labour Court, vide its impugned award dated 25.04.1994 (Annexure-P-16), bemodified to read as 50% back wages from the date of his retrenchment tillthe date of his reinstatement. It would not be out of way to mention herethat since the services of the respondent No. 2-workman have beenregularised, the question of reinstatement of respondent No. 2-workman isno more in question which would require adjudication by this Court. It ismade clear that due to the passing of present order, the services of therespondent No. 2-workman will not be affected in any way.

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.

April 16, 2009. sjks.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

Whether referred to the Reporter – Yes/No.