Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RANBIR SINGH versus P.S. SURESH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ranbir Singh v. P.S. Suresh - COCP-1303-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 4329 (18 July 2006)

COCP No. 1303 of 2004 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No. 1303 of 2004

Date of decision: July 21, 2006.

Ranbir Singh

...Petitioner(s)

v.

P.S. Suresh

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri R.S. Longia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mrs. Renu Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

As prayed for, short affidavit dated 3.5.2006 of the respondent is taken on record.

C.M. Application No.11082-CII of 2006 stands disposed of.

The petitioner filed CWP No.7270 of 2003 challenging the award dated 19.11.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. His writ petition was allowed and the above said award was set aside. Respondent No.3 was directed to take the petitioner back in employment and restore his seniority as per the selection list dated 19th June,

1987. As regards back wages, this Court directed the respondents to pay 25% wages, which the petitioner would have drawn "had he not been deprived of his rights".

In compliance to the above said order, the petitioner was permitted to join on 19th

May, 2005 and is being paid full wages from the COCP No. 1303 of 2004 -: 2 :-

said date. Prior thereto, admittedly, the petitioner has been paid 25% of the back wages.

The petitioner, however, contends that he had tendered his joining report on 25th

May, 2004, therefore, he is entitled for payment of full back wages from 25th

May, 2004 to 19th

May, 2005.

The question as to whether the petitioner wanted to join duties on 25th

May, 2004 and was willing to work from that date onwards but was deprived by the respondents from joining duties, is a question of fact which needs to be determined either by the respondents and/or a forum like the Labour Court.

In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner, if so advised, may make representation to the respondents along with all the necessary documents to show that he wanted to join the duties with effect from 25th May, 2004 but was deprived by the

respondent-authorities. If any such representation is made by him, the same shall be considered objectively and disposed of by passing a reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of the same. If the petitioner is still left with any grievance, he shall be entitled to approach the Labour Court under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

With the directions afore-mentioned, this petition is disposed of.

Rule discharged.

July 21, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.