Dismissed

Santokh Singh v. Presiding Officer and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2010LPA/1126/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent appeal, a Single Judge rejected the Labour Court's finding that the appellant was a workman under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, granting compensation instead of reinstatement. The High Court, relying on a Supreme Court precedent, dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The Single Judge's order awarding compensation of Rs. 80,000/- and rejecting reinstatement was upheld.

Santokh Singh Vs Presiding Officer… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

L.P.A. No. 1126 of 2009 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

L.P.A. No. 1126 of 2009 Date of Decision 17.08.2010

¶4

Santokh Singh

¶5

-----Appellant

¶6

Versus The Presiding Officer and another ---Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶8

Present: Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant.

¶9

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶12

The instant appeal filed by workman-appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 3374 of 2009 modifying the award of the Labour Court delivered on 23.11.2007 (Annexure P-2). The view taken by the Labour Court was that the appointment of the workman-appellant was covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that the workman-appellant was appointed on 01.04.1996 and he continued in service till September, 2003. The workman is stated to have completed 8 years of service and the finding recorded by the Labour Court that his case was covered by Section 2(oo)(bb),

¶13

L.P.A. No. 1126 of 2009 -2-

¶14

has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, by placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge has declined the reinstatement but compensation amounting to Rs. 80,000/- has been granted.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity as it is based on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of

¶16

Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb , 2008(4) SCT 33 .

¶17

As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal fails and

¶18

the same is dismissed.

¶19

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶20

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶21

August 17, 2010 Atul

Santokh Singh v. Presiding Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santokh Singh v. Presiding Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruchi Manglik and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Another Vs Rampyari and Anr.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Umesh Devi

State of Haryana Vs Dr. Muni Lal