Principal, M/S Chhotu Ram Polytechnical College, Rohtak v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Rohtak And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.10.2024 PRINCIPAL, M/S CHHOTU RAM POLYTECHNICAL COLLEGE, ROHTAK .... PETITIONER V/S THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUMLABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present :- None.

**** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1.

On 22.03.2024, the following order was passed : "1. As per office report, information to counsel for the petitioner has been sent through e-mail. 2.

By way of present writ petition, Principal, M/s Chhotu Ram Polytechnical College, Rohtak, has assailed the award dated 22.08.1997, passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, whereby reference No.80 of 1991, has been answered in favour of the workman - Sandeep Kumar.

3.

Learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has held that workman is entitled to be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of

service and 50% back wages.

4.

Pleaded case of the workman is that he worked as Playground Chowkidar, on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.1,000/- plus usual allowance, w.e.f. 21.07.1988, and suddenly, on 17.03.1990, without assigning any reason, his services were terminated in total violation of Section 25-F of the Act.

5.

In the written statement filed by the respondent, it is pleaded that workman was appointed for a specific work and for a specific period on temporary basis. Therefore, his services could be terminated at any time, without notice. 6.

Action of the respondent - Management was held to be illegal by learned Tribunal.

7.

On challenging the said award, while admitting the present writ petition, implementation of the award was stayed by this Court, vide order dated 20.07.1998, subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

8.

Persual of the record shows that respondents have never joined the proceedings of the present writ petition.

9.

Registry is directed to send notices to the petitioner as well as to respondent No.2, at the addresses mentioned in the present writ petition, for 16.05.2024"

2.

There was no representation on behalf of the respondents on 16.05.2024 and there was a request for adjournment on behalf of the petitioner, thus, the matter was adjourned for today.

3.

It appears that with the efflux of time, even the petitioner has lost his interest to pursue the matter.

4.

The impugned order was passed on 29.08.1997 and it was stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.07.1998. The workman did not file any application claiming wages in terms of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the absence of parties, especially non-joining of respondents since the date of issuance of notice, this Court does not find it appropriate to adjudicate the dispute on merits. 5.

Dismissed. The parties are at liberty to move an appropriate application, if cause survives.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 14.10.2024 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No