Dismissed

Ajay Singh v. Presiding Officer & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Nov 2012CWP/14362/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Court held that since the petitioner accepted the award before filing the petition and evidence showed he ran his own business, no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal award was dismissed.

Ajay Singh Vs Presiding Officer & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 14362 of 2010 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 14362 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.11.2012

¶4

Ajay Singh

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur & another .. Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶8

Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶9

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶10

The workman has challenged the award dated 26.5.2010, passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide which in lieu of reinstatement, the petitioner was directed to be paid compensation of ` 7,000/-.

¶11

The claim of the petitioner was that he had worked with the respondent-management from 1.9.2000 to 27.8.2001. The compensation was awarded by the Tribunal considering the fact that the respondentestablishment had closed its manufacturing activities.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having worked for a year with the respondent-management and is facing litigation for the last more than 10 years, the amount of compensation awarded to him is quite meager and the same deserves to be enhanced.

¶13

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentmanagement submitted that the amount, as awarded by the Tribunal, was accepted by the petitioner-workman on 2.8.2010 prior to even filing of the

¶14

C.W.P. No. 14362 of 2010 [2]

¶15

writ petition in this court. Once the petitioner had accepted the amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, he had no right to challenge the award of the Tribunal. He further submitted that in the evidence produced by the management before the Tribunal, it was established that the petitioner, in fact, had been carrying on his own business even during the period when he claimed that he was working with the respondentmanagement.

¶16

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner had already accepted the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal in lieu of reinstatement before filing the present petition and further that in the evidence led by the management, it was proved that the petitioner had been carrying on his own business, in my opinion, no case for interference in the impugned award is made out.

¶17

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶18

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶19

27.11.2012 mk

Ajay Singh v. Presiding Officer & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Singh v. Presiding Officer & Anr.

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

(O&M) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and Anr. Vs Rennie and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Mangat Singh Vs Labour Court Jalandhar & Anr.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pushpa Bhandari Vs State of Haryana

Warjinder Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors.