Dismissed

Gurnam Singh v. Market Committee Budhlada etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Jul 2010CWP/9178/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a labour court award that denied backwages to a workman. The petitioner, absent in court but represented by affidavit stating no contestation, did not appear for hearing. The Court awarded Rs. 10,000 compensation as a substitute for backwages satisfaction and quashed the impugned award part.

What did the court decide?

Award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner to satisfy the claim for backwages in totality.

Gurnam Singh Vs Market Committee… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 9178 of 1989

¶2

¶3

Gurnam Singh versus Market Committee Budhlada and another

¶4

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶5

Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab for respondent No. 2.

¶6

¶7

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction for quashing the part of award dated 25.05.1988, whereby the backwages were denied to the petitioner-workman. The services of the petitioner were terminated and he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to adjudication before labour Court, Bathinda. The Court found that the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated and directed his reinstatement. The petitioner, however, was denied backwages. He has, accordingly, challenged that part of the award through the present writ petition.

¶8

When the case is called, no one appears for petitioner or for the contesting respondent No. 1. Perusal of the record, however, would show that the counsel for respondent No. 1 had made a statement on 15.07.1993 to the effect that the workman had given in writing on 25.05.1989 after the passing of the award of the labour Court, he would claim backwages only for a period he had worked, as also increments. This statement was accepted by the counsel for the management and the case was adjourned to enable the counsel for the petitioner to have instructions.

¶9

Subsequently, the case was again taken up for hearing and it was recorded by this Court in its order dated 15.03.2010 as

¶10

Civil Writ Petition No. 9178 of 1989

¶11

-2-

¶12

under:-

¶13

“ Counsel for respondent No. 1 has placed on record affidavit dated 18.2.2010 of the petitioner stating therein that he is not interested to contest the case and wants to withdraw it. The said affidavit is taken on record.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment to seek instructions in this matter.

¶15

Adjourned to 26.03.2010.”

¶16

Subsequently, some prayer was made for filing some additional affidavit. Instead of waiting further for the parties to settle the issue, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner, which shall satisfy the claim of the backwages in totality. If the petitioner still feels aggrieved, he may move an application for reviving the writ petition.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

July 26, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE

Gurnam Singh v. Market Committee Budhlada etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurnam Singh v. Market Committee Budhlada etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Rai Vs State of Pb.

Pooja Vaid Vs Sarabjit Singh

Manjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Managing Committee, Arya Girls Higher Secondary School Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sampuran Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Vs State of Haryana