Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25073 (PNJ)

MANAGING DIRECTOR SPINFED PB CHD AND ANR v. PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.

CWP/18460/1997 · 2025-07-03

Harsimran Singh Sethi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 213 CWP-18460-1997 (O&M) Decided on :03.07.2025 MANAGING DIRECTOR SPINFED PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND ANR . .Petitioners Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BHATINDA & OTHERS. . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Puneet Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners. (appeared through virtual mode) Mr. H. S. Lalli, Advocate for respondent No. 2. (appeared through virtual mode) **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1. 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 petitioner- company has already been liquidated and as on now, no assets of the petitioner -company are available to satisfy the claim of respondent- workman, admissible under the impugned award 19.11.1997 (Annexure P- 13) passed by the labour Court, even if the writ petition is dismissed. 2. 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 respondent- workman even if the impugned award challenged is ultimately upheld. RIYA 2025.07.04 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18460-1997 (O&M) -2- 3. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is disposed of 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. 4. 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. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 03.07.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RIYA 2025.07.04 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document