Disposed¶18

Managing Director Spinfed Pb Chd and Anr. v. Presiding Officer & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2025CWP/18460/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SPINFED Punjab liquidation; Labour Court Bhatinda award 19.11.1997 Annexure P-13; writ petition filed 1997 rendered infructuous; no assets to satisfy workman claim; petition disposed of; liberty to revive if company assets available; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Harsimran Singh Sethi J.; decided 03.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the respondent-workman to revive the petition if any assets of the petitioner-company are still available to satisfy the claim in the impugned award dated 19.11.1997 (Annexure P-13); otherwise no further orders issued. ¶18

Managing Director Spinfed Pb Chd and Anr. Vs Presiding Officer & Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the liquidation of the petitioner-company and the non-availability of its assets, any substantial relief can be granted to the respondent-workman even if the impugned award dated 19.11.1997 is ultimately upheld.

¶14

Court's answer

Since the petitioner-company has been liquidated and no assets are available to satisfy the claim of the respondent-workman under the impugned award dated 19.11.1997 (Annexure P-13), the claim raised on the basis of the reference has been rendered infructuous and no substantial relief can be granted to the respondent-workman even if the impugned award is upheld.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

On that footing the present writ petition is disposed of, with the observation that no further orders are called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted.

¶18

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the respondent-workman to revive the present petition in case any of the assets of the petitioner-company is still found available to satisfy the claim in the impugned award 19.11.1997 (Annexure P-13).ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition CWP-18460-1997 (O&M), filed in 1997 by the Managing Director, SPINFED Punjab, Punjab, challenging an award dated 19.11.1997 (Annexure P-13) of the Labour Court, Bhatinda. Both counsel were ad-idem that the petitioner-company has since been liquidated and no assets are available to satisfy the respondent-workman's claim under the award. The Court held that the claim raised on the basis of the reference had been rendered infructuous and no substantial relief could be granted to the respondent-workman even if the award were ultimately upheld. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with the observation that no further orders were called for, while reserving liberty to the respondent-workman to revive the petition should any assets of the petitioner-company still be available. Oral decision of Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., dated 03.07.2025; marked not reportable.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

213

¶3

CWP-18460-1997 (O&M) Decided on :03.07.2025

¶4

MANAGING DIRECTOR SPINFED PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND ANR . .Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BHATINDA & OTHERS.

¶7

. . . Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶9

PRESENT: Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners. (appeared through virtual mode)

¶10

Mr. H. S. Lalli, Advocate for respondent No. 2. (appeared through virtual mode)

¶11

¶12

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

¶13

Learned counsel for both the parties are ad-idem to the fact that the present petition was filed in the year 1997 and thereafter, the petitionercompany has already been liquidated and as on now, no assets of the petitioner -company are available to satisfy the claim of respondentworkman, admissible under the impugned award 19.11.1997 (Annexure P- 13) passed by the labour Court, even if the writ petition is dismissed.

¶14

Keeping in view the totality of circumstances which have come into being after the filing of the present petition, the claim being raised by the respondent-workman on the basis of the reference has been rendered infructuous and no substantial relief can be granted to the respondentworkman even if the impugned award challenged is ultimately upheld.

¶15

RIYA 2025.07.04 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-18460-1997 (O&M) -2-

¶17

Keeping in view the above, the present petition is disposed of

¶18

with aforesaid observation that no further orders are called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted herein before and the same is disposed of as such.

¶19

However, liberty is granted to the respondent-workman to revive the present petition, in case, any of the assets of the petitioner-company is still available so as to satisfy the claim in the impugned award 19.11.1997 (Annexure P-13) in case, the writ petition is decided on merit further so as to upheld the impugned award.

¶20

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶21

03.07.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes /No Whether Reportable: Yes/ No

¶22

RIYA 2025.07.04 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Managing Director Spinfed Pb Chd and Anr. v. Presiding Officer & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Managing Director Spinfed Pb Chd and Anr. v. Presiding Officer & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kundra @Sunny Vs District Magistrate-Cum-Appellate Tribunal and Others

Rajesh Alias Rajesh Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner Panipat and Another

Kapoor Chand Vs Union of India & Ors.

Thenew United Transport Co. Vs State of Pb.Etc.

F.C.L.Workers Union Vs P.F.C.and Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Satbir Singh etc.