LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

GURJANT SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 1 July, 2016

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-005445-005445 - 2016Official PDFBench Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali NarimanAdvocates VARINDER KUMAR SHARMA
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5445 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.25233 of 2013)
GURJANT SINGH & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T

1 Leave granted.

2 The appellants approached this Court aggrieved by

the Judgment dated 16th July, 2013 passed by the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the

High Court had remitted the references under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour

Court/Industrial Tribunal,Patiala. The appellants

apprehended that during the pendency of the adjudication JUDGMENT before the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, they would be

terminated from the service.

3. By order dated 30th September, 2013, this Court

directed to maintain status quo with regard to the

service of the appellants. It appears on account of the

said interim order, the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala did

not proceed with the references. Therefore, by a

subsequent order dated 14th October, 2015, it was

clarified that pendency of the matter before this Court

shall not stand in the way of the Labour Court proceeding

with the references.

4. The Industrial Tribunal, Patiala has thereafter

decided the references and has passed Awards in the case

of all five appellants. It is seen from the Awards that

all the appellants/workmen have been directed to be

reinstated with the continuity of service but without the

back wages for the period they have not rendered any

service.

5. In view of the above development, we do not think it

necessary to keep this appeal pending. Now that the

Industrial Tribunal, Patiala has passed the Awards, it is

for the parties concerned (appellants and respondent Nos.

1 to 3) if they are aggrieved, and if so advised, to

pursue the matter in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order

as to costs. JUDGMENT

JULY 01, 2016