CWP-8571- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (288) Vijay Kumar The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the award dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure P wherethrough, petitioner/workman. 2. Court, since the year 2012. 3. 28.08.2025, had passed the h petition :- -2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Vijay Kumar Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the award dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure P-7), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, wherethrough, the reference has been answered against the petitioner/workman. The instant writ petition is pending adjudication before this Court, since the year 2012. During the course of the hearing, this Court, vide order dated 28.08.2025, had passed the hereinafter extracted order, upon the instant writ “A perusal of the record reflects that instead of complying with the provisions of Section 17 Disputes Act, 1947, the co also chargesheeted alongwith the present petitioners, was 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8571-2012 Date of Decision : 22.09.2025 …Petitioner Versus ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the award dated 19.11.2010 7), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, the reference has been answered against the The instant writ petition is pending adjudication before this During the course of the hearing, this Court, vide order dated ereinafter extracted order, upon the instant writ A perusal of the record reflects that instead of complying with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the co-workman Sewa Singh, who was also chargesheeted alongwith the present petitioners, was Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the award dated 19.11.2010 7), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal concerned, the reference has been answered against the The instant writ petition is pending adjudication before this During the course of the hearing, this Court, vide order dated ereinafter extracted order, upon the instant writ A perusal of the record reflects that instead of complying B of the Industrial workman Sewa Singh, who was also chargesheeted alongwith the present petitioners, was MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.24 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-8571- 4. counsel for the respondent No.2/Management, apprises th instant matter can be disposed of, as the respondent No.2/Management, is ready and willing to pay Rs.3,00,000/ to the instant dispute, on 5. concerned, the instant writ petition is respondent No.2/Management, to pay petitioner, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. September 22, 2025 Manpreet -2012 taken back in service by respo The reference preferred by the petitioner way back on 02.05.1985, has been decided against him, vide impugned Award dated 19.11.2010. At this stage, this Court is of the view that the case of present petitioner can only be considered, for awarding compensation to be payable by the respondent no.2 management. Adjourned to 18.09.2025. To be shown in the urgent list. It is made clear that no further request for an adjournment shall be entertained on the next date of hearing, on behalf of either of the parties. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Management, apprises th instant matter can be disposed of, as the respondent No.2/Management, is ready and willing to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as a to the instant dispute, once and for all. In view of the settlement arrived at be concerned, the instant writ petition is disposed of respondent No.2/Management, to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ petitioner, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of certified his order. Ordered accordingly. 22, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2 taken back in service by respondent no.2- management. The reference preferred by the petitioner-workman way back on 02.05.1985, has been decided against him, vide impugned Award dated 19.11.2010. At this stage, this Court is of the view that the case of present petitioner can only be considered, for awarding compensation to be payable by the respondent no.2 Adjourned to 18.09.2025. To be shown in the urgent list. ar that no further request for an adjournment shall be entertained on the next date of hearing, on behalf of either of the parties.” Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Management, apprises this Court, that the instant matter can be disposed of, as the respondent No.2/Management, is as a lump sum amount, to give quietus In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties disposed of, with a mandamus, upon the an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of certified (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No workman way back on 02.05.1985, has been decided against him, At this stage, this Court is of the view that the case of present petitioner can only be considered, for awarding compensation to be payable by the respondent no.2- ar that no further request for an adjournment shall be entertained on the next date of Today, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as, learned is Court, that the instant matter can be disposed of, as the respondent No.2/Management, is , to give quietus tween the parties , upon the to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of certified MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.24 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment