The Sonepat Central Coop.Bank v. B.S.Sharma Presiding Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.07.2024 THE SONEPAT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK, SONEPAT .... PETITIONER

Versus

B.S.SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVECUM-LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr.Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhbir Singh-respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate **** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of award dated 19.02.1999 (Annexure P/6) passed by Presiding Officer, Central Co-operative-cum-Labour Court, Panipat.

2.

On 08.04.2024, the following order was passed : "During the course of short hearing, Mr.

Aman Pal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 informs the Court that after crossing the age of supperannuation

respondent No.2 (workman) has retired way back in the year 2010.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that workman joined the service on 08.12.1975 and was terminated on 05.10.1994, thus, workman served for a period of about 20 years with the petitionerManagement. Thereafter, the industrial dispute was raised and same has already been adjudicated by learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 19.02.1999 (Annexuren P-6) by answering the same in favour of workman-respondent No.2 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further informs that during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Court, there was regular compliance of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thus, he proposes that instead of examining the issue already decided vide impugned award at such a belated stage, the present writ petition can be disposed of by granting a lump sum amount of compensation payable to respondent No.2-workman.

Mr. Subhash Ahuja, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an adjournment for getting required instructions.

Adjourned to 30.04.2024."

3.

Mr. Ahuja submits that Board of Directors of the petitionerbank has decided to leave to Court to quantify amount of compensation to be paid to respondent.

4.

Mr. Aman Pal, counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that respondent would abide by order of this Court. 5.

Considering the fact that the matter is pending before this Court since 1999 and petitioner had worked with respondent for 20 years, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as lump sum compensation. If the said amount is paid within three months from today, it would not carry interest, however, if the petitioner fails to pay the said amount within the said period, it would carry interest @ 9% from today.

6.

Disposed of.

7.

Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 23.07.2024 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No