CWP-7005-2012 & connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (222) CWP-7005-2012 Date of Decision : April 01, 2025 Baag Chand @ Dilbaag .. Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another .. Respondents (2) CWP-7008-2012 Baldev Singh .. Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another .. Respondents (3) CWP-7009-2012 Wasawa Ram .. Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another .. Respondents (4) CWP-7025-2012 Devi Lal .. Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another .. Respondents (5) CWP-7053-2012 Om Parkash .. Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another .. Respondents HARSHA RANI 2025.04.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7005-2012 & connected cases 2 (6) CWP-7086-2012 Khushal Chand .. Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in all petitions. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2 in all petitions. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) 1. By this common order, six writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as all the petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP-7005-2012. 2. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the Award dated 10.01.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by Tribunal by which, the challenge was raised to the termination of the services of the petitioner-workman allegedly being done on 30.09.2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)-workman submits that the relief has not been granted to the petitioner(s)-workman only on the basis of the earlier Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court dated 06.05.2004 by which, the permission was granted to the Management to terminate the services of the petitioner(s)-workman. HARSHA RANI 2025.04.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7005-2012 & connected cases 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)-workman further submits that the said order dated 06.05.2004 will not come in the way of the petitioner(s)-workman to claim relief and the reliance being placed upon the aforementioned Award by the Tribunal so as to reject the claim of the petitioner while passing the Award dated 10.01.2011 (Annexure P-3) is incorrect. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner(s)-workman are contending that their services were terminated on 30.09.2000 whereas, as per the finding recorded in the Award dated 06.05.2004 (Annexure R-2/5), in paragraph 7, the said fact has not been accepted and the services have only been terminated after the passing of the Award dated 06.05.2004 by which, the permission was granted to the Management to punish the petitioner(s)-workman. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that the Award dated 06.05.2004 (Annexure R-2/5) has never been challenged hence, the said Award has rightly been taken into account to deny the relief to the petitioner(s)-workman that the permission to terminate the services has been granted and therefore, the present reference cannot be allowed in favour of the workman. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)-workman submits that in case, the services of the petitioner(s)-workman were not terminated on 30.09.2000 and only permission was granted to terminate the services of the petitioner(s)-workman on 06.05.2004, after which, as per the petitioner(s), no order has been passed, that means the petitioner(s) remain in service between 30.09.2000 and 06.05.2004. HARSHA RANI 2025.04.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7005-2012 & connected cases 4 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that permission be granted to the petitioner(s)-workman to claim the salary as, even as per the respondents, the petitioner(s)-workman remained in service upto 06.05.2004 after which only, the services of the petitioner(s)-workman could have been terminated. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s)-workman submits that the present set of six writ petitions may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the petitioner(s)-workman to avail the remedy before the appropriate forum to claim the wages from 30.09.2000 till the termination of the services of the petitioner(s) if any. 10. Ordered accordingly. 10.A It is noticed that this Court is not expressing any view on the merits of the case. 11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases. April 01, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2025.04.07 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document