Harish Singh v. The Polc Ambala And ORS.

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: January 30, 2024 Harish Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P. C. Goyal, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

**** SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1.

This writ petition has been directed by the workman - Harish Singh, challenging the award dated 05.06.1995 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner-workman has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and backwages to the extent of 50%, from the date of serving of demand notice.

2.

As per the case of the workman, he joined service on 21.08.1990 and his services were terminated on 01.06.1993. It is not in dispute that the writ petition is pending for the last more than 26 years. In all probabilities, it appears that during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, petitioner-workman might have crossed the age of superannuation.

3.

Mr. G.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

- 2 - petitioner-workman expresses his inability by submitting that since last several years, he is unable to have any contact with his client i.e. workman, despite of making all possible efforts.

4.

In this backdrop, on 05.12.2016, Daily Lok Adalat of this Court recorded its order, as under:- "Daily Lok Adalat Bench No. 2 CWP No. 3346 of 1997 Harish Singh Vs. P.O., Labour Court, Ambala and ors.

Present:

Ms. Vinita Jain, Advocate, for Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

None for respondents No. 2 to 4.

**** It has been stated by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that arguing counsel is not in contact with the petitioner. As per office report, notice issued to the petitioner has been received back with the report, "not residing at the given address." Learned counsel for the petitioner is having no other address of the petitioner. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no possibility of compromise in this case in Lok Adalat and the same be sent back to the Hon'ble High Court for adjudication. Ordered accordingly.

(R.K. Nehru) President 05.12.2016 (Ram Chand Gupta) Member"

5.

In the aforementioned backdrop of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose is being achieved by keeping this

- 3 - petition pending.

6.

In such circumstances, present writ petition is disposed of for want of prosecution. However, in case any substantial cause of action still survives, either of the parties i.e. management or workman, would be at liberty to move appropriate application for seeking revival of the present petition, within a period of eight weeks from today. 7.

Writ petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE January 30, 2024 Pkapoor Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No