Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vaish College Of Engineering Rohtak ... vs Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal ... on 18 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Decided on: April 18, 2024
Sr. Case Case Title Reference
No. No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) No. before
Labour
Court
01 CWP- Vaish College of Presiding Officer, 98 of 2015
20416- Engineering, Industrial Tribunal-
2017 Rohtak cum-Labour Court,
(O&M) Rohtak and another
02 CWP- Vaish College of Presiding Officer, 105 of 2015
20344- Engineering, Industrial Tribunal-
2017 Rohtak cum-Labour Court,
(O&M) Rohtak and another
03 CWP- Vaish College of Presiding Officer, 99 of 2015
20415- Engineering, Industrial Tribunal-
2017 Rohtak cum-Labour Court,
(O&M) Rohtak and another
04 CWP- Vaish College of Presiding Officer, 100 of 2015
20417- Engineering, Industrial Tribunal-
2017 Rohtak cum-Labour Court,
(O&M) Rohtak and another
05 CWP- Vaish College of Presiding Officer, 103 of 2015
20418- Engineering, Industrial Tribunal-
2017 Rohtak cum-Labour Court,
(O&M) Rohtak and another
06 CWP- Vaish College of Presiding Officer, 104 of 2015
20419- Engineering, Industrial Tribunal-
2017 Rohtak cum-Labour Court,
(O&M) Rohtak and another
07 CWP- Vaish College of Presiding Officer, 101 of 2015
20420- Engineering, Industrial Tribunal-
2017 Rohtak cum-Labour Court,
(O&M) Rohtak and another
08 CWP- Vaish College of Presiding Officer, 106 of 2015
21053- Engineering, Industrial Tribunal-
2017 Rohtak cum-Labour Court,
(O&M) Rohtak and another
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 13:59:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -2-
09 CWP- Vaish College of Presiding Officer, 102 of 2015
21082- Engineering, Industrial Tribunal-
2017 Rohtak cum-Labour Court,
(O&M) Rohtak and another
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
ARGUED BY:
For Vaish College : Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, in all 09 Writ
of Engineering, Senior Advocate, with Petitions
Rohtak Mr. Lokesh Sharma,
Advocate, and Mr.
Pankaj Gautam,
Advocate.
For respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, in CWP Nos.
No. 2 - Workman Advocate, and 20344, 20415,
Mr. Lalit Rishi, 20416, 20417,
Advocate. 20418, 20419,
21053 & 21082 of
2017
Mr. Sandeep Singal, in CWP No. 20420
Advocate of 2017
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. This common judgement shall dispose of aforementioned 09
writ petitions because common questions of law and similar facts are
involved, in this bunch of petitions.
2. These petitions have been filed by petitioner - Vaish College of
Engineering, Rohtak, being the management, assailing separate nine
awards, dated 27.02.2017, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Rohtak (here-after referred to as, 'the Tribunal'), in respective
references (as depicted in the above table), which were instituted by
respondent No. 2 - Workmen, directly before the Tribunal, in terms of
2 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -3-
amended provision of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for
short, 'the Act'), whereby references have been answered in favour of the
workmen. In all the 09 cases, the workmen have been held entitled for
reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages, and all other
consequential benefits.
3. For the reason that the facts of these petitions are identical, to
avoid repetition and for the sake of brevity, the facts as pleaded in CWP No.
20416 of 2017, are being referred in subsequent paras of this judgement, by
treating the same as lead case.
4. As per pleaded case of respondent No. 2/workman - Sahil
Goyal (in CWP-20416-2017), he was appointed as a Lab Technician with
the petitioner/management on 30.09.2009, on regular basis after publication
of said post in newspaper, interview and other formalities. The pay scale of
the workman was revised to Rs.5200-20250+1900 AGP plus other
allowances w.e.f. 16.01.2012. However, his services were terminated on
08.05.2015, on the premise that his appointment was not through proper
channel. Claiming that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days
in a calendar year, and termination of his services was in violation of the
mandatory provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act, the
workman approached the Tribunal, by filing his claim statement under
Section 2A of the Act.
5. Petitioner/management contested the claim of the workman by
pleading in the written statement that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the claim petition, because of setting up of the Educational
3 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -4-
Tribunal by the Government, for dealing with the cases of the employees of
the educational institutions. It was further pleaded that appointment of the
workman was illegal since the very inception, and being surplus, he was
removed from service in just and fair manner. However, it was admitted
that the workman was employed as Lab Technician in the Computer
Science and Engineering Department on adhoc basis at a consolidated
salary of Rs. 5,000/-, vide order dated 30.09.2009, and after revision of pay,
his basic pay was fixed as Rs.7,100/- w.e.f. 01.01.2012, vide order dated
16.01.2012. Denying the appointment of the workman on regular basis, it
was stated that a cheque of Rs. 42,294/-, as three months' salary in lieu of
notice, was sent to him by registered cover. Hence, the
petitioner/management prayed for dismissal of the reference.
6. After filing of replication, following issues were framed by the
Tribunal:
"(1). Whether termination of services of workman is justified
and if not, to what relief he is entitled? OPW.
(2). Relief."
7. After analyzing the pleadings and evidence adduced by
respective parties, the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the
workman by holding that the petitioner/management has violated the
mandatory provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act, while
terminating the services of the workman. The observations made by the
Tribunal in para Nos. 14 to 17 of its award dated 27.02.2017, in Reference
No. 98 of 2015, which is subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 20416 of
4 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -5-
2017, says as under:-
"14. After hearing both the sides and appreciating the
entire evidence adduced in the case, I am of the considered
opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 30.09.2009 and he
was removed on 8.5.2015 and he continuously rendered
service with the respondent during the said period. Therefore,
he had completed 240 days in the preceding 12 calender
months of his termination. Though, as per the termination
order dated 8.5.2015, the petitioner was made payment in lieu
of notice but no retrenchment compensation in terms of Section
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was admittedly, given
to him. Thus, there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This fact has also been
conceded by the learned AR for the respondent during the
course of arguments. Further, as per the termination order
dated 8.5.2015, the petitioner was relieved of his duty on the
ground that his appointment was not through proper channel.
The said termination order has been exhibited in evidence and
it does not make any mention that services of the petitioner
were terminated on the ground of the staff being rendered
surplus. There is nothing to show as to what was the 'proper
channel', through which, services of the employees like the
petitioner, were to be hired. In fact, admittedly, the petitioner
had worked for several years with the respondent and
appraisal of his work and conduct was also done from time to
time and he was granted the higher scale. Therefore, plea of
the respondent that appointment of the petitioner was not
'through proper channel' is a farce and, thus, not sustainable
in law. As regards the plea of the respondent that there have
been less admissions during the preceding years and, hence,
post of the petitioner was rendered surplus, is concerned, this
fact is also not proved by the respondent. Though, the
respondent has produced on record an extract of the
admissions made from the year 2012 to the year 2016 as
Ex.M5A but the same has no evidentiary value. The original
record, from which, the Extract Ex. M5A was prepared, has not
been produced in the Court. Sh. Mohit Kumar Aggarwal
(MW1), in whose evidence, the Extract Ex. M5A was exhibited,
has stated that he had not seen the original record, from which,
the Extract Ex.M5A was prepared nor he had brought the same
before the Court. He further stated that he had not prepared
the Extract Ex.M5A nor he had checked the record in this
regard. He further stated that the Principal had prepared the
same but he has not stepped into the witness box. Thus, the
Extract Ex.M5A has no evidentiary value and the same does
5 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -6-
not conclusively prove that there is a decline in the admission
of students with the respondent in the preceding years.
Therefore, the respondent has failed to prove that removal of
the petitioner is on account of the fact that the staff was
rendered surplus. In fact, it is proved on the record from the
appointment letters Ex. W1, Ex. W-2 and Ex.W3 that fresh
appointments of Lab Technicians were made by the respondent
and the said appointees are still working. Admittedly, no
seniority list was displayed on the notice board or circulated to
the petitioner before his removal. Thus, the extract of the
seniority list Ex.M4A in respect of the Lab Technicians and
Lab Assistants has no value, moreso when, the concerned
record in respect of the same has also not been produced.
Therefore, it follows that there is also a contravention of
Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
15. As a sequel to what has been discussed above, it
is held that the respondent has violated the mandatory
provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, in terminating the services of the
petitioner.
16. Now, the question arises as to whether the
petitioner is entitled to reinstatement or he is entitled only to
the compensation in lieu thereof. In Sports Authority of India
Vs Sunil Kumar reported as 2016(2) Recent Services
Judgments, page 400, it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that non compliance of the provisions of Section 25F,
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
renders the order of termination void and, therefore, the
concerned workmen were entitled to reinstatement and award
of full back wages, was justified. Further, it was held by our
own Hon'ble High Court in Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs The
Management of M/s. Milk Plant, Ambala reported as 1992(2)
Recent Services Judgments, page 466, that Section 25(B) (2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not make any
distinction between those employed on regular wages and
those employed on daily wages. It was further held in the said
authority that where the workman had completed 240 days,
termination of his services was in the nature of retrenchment
and this could be done only by following the procedure and
complying with the conditions given in Section 25F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, in Jasmer Singh Vs
State of Haryana and another reported as 2015(3) Recent
Services Judgments, page 517, it was held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that where there was violation of Sections 25F,
25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the
6 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -7-
finding of the Labour Court was that the workman had worked
for more than 240 days, his termination was bad and he was
entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of
service. Further, in Chinti Devi Vs. Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, District Panipat and
another reported as 2014(2) Recent Services Judgments, page
3, it was held by our own Hon'ble High Court that where
finding of the Labour Court was that the workman had worked
for five years but instead of reinstatement, he was awarded
lump-sump compensation, the award was set aside by the
Hon'ble High Court and the workman was directed to be
reinstated in service. The authorities referred to above are
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore,
in the present case, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement
with continuity in service, full back wages and all other
consequential benefits. Accordingly, it is held that the
petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service,
full back wages and all other consequential benefits. Thus, this
issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No.2 Relief
17. In view of my findings on issue No.1, the present
claim petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be
reinstated with continuity of service, full back-wages and all
other consequential benefits. The reference is accordingly,
answered in favour of the petitioner in the terms aforesaid.
File be consigned to the record room."
8. It requires to be noticed here that when these 09 writ petitions
alongwith four Civil Revision Nos. 4339, 4343, 4354 and 4350 of 2018,
came up for consideration on 03.10.2018, before a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, the same were disposed of by observing as under:-
"7. Having considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the record as
also the view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in
T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case (supra), this Court is of the
considered view that after the Educational Tribunal coming
into force, all disputes except gratuity matters are to be
referred to it (Educational Tribunal). Similar view was taken
by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Suman Kajla Vs.
State of Haryana and others, 2007 (5) SLR 329; and Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court in Dr. Mukul Gupta Vs.
7 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -8-
Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited and others,
2015(4) SCT 380; and Rashmi Arora Vs. DAV College
Managing Committee and others, 2017 (2) SCT 615.
8. Learned Tribunal has erred in deciding the
industrial disputes and allowing reinstatement to the workmen
with continuity of service, full back wages and all other
consequential benefits. In fact, as per view taken by Hon'ble
Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case (supra), the
Tribunal should have returned the reference unanswered with
liberty to the workmen to avail the remedy of filing appeal
before the Educational Tribunal.
9. Resultantly, the present writ petitions as well as
the revision petitions are accepted and the impugned
awards/orders are set aside. The workmen may avail their
remedy of filing appeal before the Educational Tribunal. In
case there is any dispute regarding grant of gratuity, the
workmen will be well within their rights to challenge the same
before appropriate authority. The authorities concerned under
the Act are requested to consider the delay application, if any
sympathetically and entertain the claim of the workmen. Even
the question of res-judicata shall not arise in view of this later
development.
10. All the 09 writ petitions and 04 revision petitions
stand disposed of in the above terms."
9. The aforementioned order dated 03.10.2018, was assailed by
respondent No. 2-workmen, by filing 09 LPA Nos. 1554, 1580, 1581, 1582,
1585, 1593, 1594, 1667 and 1726 of 2018. The Hon'ble Letters Patent
Bench, vide judgement dated 23.02.2023, remanded the matter to Single
Bench for fresh decision on merits as to whether the award is liable to be
sustained or not. It is also pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Letters
Patent Bench while passing the judgement dated 23.02.2023 has noticed the
entire factual and legal proposition of law in detail, especially the fact that
the workmen had approached the Educational Tribunal within 5 months of
their termination, and later on had given a statement that they would like to
8 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions -9-
raise an industrial dispute regarding their termination of services, and they
were granted liberty vide order dated 8.10.2015, passed by the District
Judge, Rohtak, to raise the industrial dispute regarding termination of their
services. And, the said order dated 8.10.2015 was passed in the presence of
the counsel for the petitioner/management.
10. During pendency of the writ petitions, respondent No. 2 -
workmen also initiated the execution proceedings before the Civil Court at
Rohtak, against the petitioner/management, there being no stay of the
operation of impugned award(s) dated 27.02.2017. They have also filed
application for attachment of the bank accounts of the
petitioner/management. Thereupon, the Executing Court of Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Rohtak, passed the orders of attachment of bank accounts
of the petitioner/management and also issued warrants of attachment qua
Bank Accounts bearing Nos. 522102010048753 and 522102010007025 in
Union Bank of India; and Bank Account Nos. 0948000100195151 and
0948000100219442 in Punjab National Bank. Copy of one such order dated
22.03.2024, passed in Execution No. 50 of 2023, titled as "Sahil Goyal v.
The Principal Vaish College of Engineering", and warrant of
attachment/letter dated 03.04.2024, have been placed on record by the
petitioner/management, by filing CM-6374-2024 in CWP-20416-2017.
Even the concerned bank authorities have frozen the aforementioned bank
accounts of the petitioner/management, in compliance of the directions
issued by the Executing Court.
11. The petitioner/management also moved miscellaneous
9 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 10 -
application(s), seeking stay of operation of the orders of attachment of bank
accounts and warrants of attachment, passed/issued by the Executing Court
in execution proceedings, initiated by different workmen, who are
respondent Nos. 2 in respective writ petitions. In one such application
bearing CM-21726-CWP-2023 in CWP-20420-2017, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, has passed the following order on 22.12.2023:-
"CM-21726-CWP-2023:
Prayer in the present application is for staying the
operation of attachment orders (Annexure A-2) and warrants
of attachment (Annexure A-3) passed by the learned Executing
Court. A further prayer has been made that
applicant/petitioner may be permitted to continue to operate
its attached bank account, during the pendency of the main
writ petition.
Learned senior counsel for the
applicant/petitioner submits that the main writ petition has
been filed by the applicant/petitioner-College, challenging the
impugned award dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure P-13), whereby
the Tribunal below had answered the reference in favour of
respondent No.2 (Akshay) and it was directed that he be
reinstated with continuity in service, full back wages and all
consequential benefits.
Learned senior counsel for the
applicant/petitioner further submits that in pursuance of the
aforesaid award dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure P-13),
respondent No.2 was reinstated in service and is still
continuing in service with the petitioner-College. Learned
senior counsel for the applicant/petitioner states that as
regards the monetary benefits, respondent No.2 had filed an
execution application before the Civil Court at Rohtak,
wherein respondent No.2 had filed an application for
attachment of Bank Accounts of the applicant/petitioner on
25.08.2023 (Annexure A-1). It is stated that in the execution
application, even the details/calculations of amount sought to
be recovered is not maintained, however, be that as it may, the
Civil Court/Executing Court has passed attachment order
dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure A-2) and has further issued
warrants of attachment dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure A-3). It is
10 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 11 -
further stated by learned senior counsel for the
applicant/petitioner that on the basis of the attachment
orders/warrants of attachment, the Union Bank of India, VTI,
Rohtak has frozen the Bank Account Nos.522102010007025
and 522102010048753 of the applicant/petitioner-College. It
is contended that although no amount is forthcoming either
from the execution application or in the attachment
orders/warrants of attachment, however, as per the
calculations made by the applicant/petitioner-College, the
amount to be recovered by respondent No.2 from the
applicant/petitioner-College would not be more than Rs.7
Lacs. Learned senior counsel for the applicant/petitioner
submits that applicant-petitioner is ready to deposit the said
amount of Rs.7 Lacs with the Executing Court by way of the
Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) within a period of ten days
from today, subject to final outcome of the main writ petition,
however, the applicant/petitioner may be permitted to operate
the aforesaid Bank Account Nos.522102010007025 and
522102010048753 and suitable directions be issued for de-
freezing the said accounts.
Notice in the application for 10.01.2024.
In the meanwhile, it is directed that in case the
applicant/petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.8 Lacs by way of
the Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) with the Executing Court
within a period of ten days from today then upon such deposit,
the applicant/petitioner be permitted to operate the aforesaid
two Bank Account Nos.522102010007025 and
522102010048753 and the said Bank Accounts be de-freeze.
It is made clear that the aforesaid direction is
only by way of interim measure which shall be subject to final
outcome of the main writ petition."
12. Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner-management, states that much water has already flown since
passing of the impugned award(s) by the Tribunal, and filing of present writ
petitions before this Court. He fairly admits that in none of the writ
petitions, operation of the impugned award(s) have been stayed and as a
consequence thereof, respondent No. 2 - workmen in respective cases have
11 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 12 -
already been reinstated in service by granting all service benefits. The only
issue which remains to be adjudicated is with regard to 'payment of full
back wages' to the respective workmen.
In this regard, learned Senior counsel, on being instructed by
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Administrative Officer & O.S.D. to President, Vaish
Education Society (Registered), Rohtak, who is present in person in the
Court on behalf of the petitioner/management, states at the Bar that the
petitioner/management, in fact, is not interested in challenging the
impugned award(s) dated 27.02.2017, passed by the Tribunal, on its merits,
as the same has already been implemented in part. Therefore, Mr. Jindal
proposes for considering the prayer of the petitioner/management for grant
of '50% back wages' to respondent No. 2 - workmen in all the 09 cases,
instead of 'full back wages', as has been awarded by the Tribunal in their
favour. He further submits that if the impugned award(s) is/are modified to
that extent only, the petitioner/management is ready and willing to comply
with the remaining direction of the Tribunal regarding payment of back-
wages, at the earliest, for the better administration of justice.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - workmen in these
petitions, put forth the proposal of the petitioner/management to their
respective clients, and after receiving instructions from them, made a candid
statement at the Bar that respondent No. 2 - workmen are agreeable to
accept the aforementioned proposal of the petitioner/management, provided
that their complete dues are paid by the petitioner/management within a
reasonable time frame, failing which liberty be granted to them to further
12 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 13 -
pursue the execution petitions, in accordance with law.
14. In view of the consensus arrived at between both the parties;
the statements made by their respective counsel; and considering the
circumstances enumerated hereabove, this Court is of the opinion that no
material issue is left to be adjudicated by this Court in these proceedings.
15. Accordingly, while maintaining the findings recorded by the
Tribunal, answering the references in question in favour of the workmen
qua termination of their services and reinstatement, the impugned award(s)
dated 27.02.2017, is/are upheld, with the only modification to the extent of
back wages. Thus, it is ordered that respondent No. 2 - workmen in these
petitions, shall be entitled to 50% back-wages instead of full back-wages
and all other consequential benefits. Further, the petitioner/management
shall make complete payment of 50% back-wages and other dues, if any, to
respondent No. 2 - workmen, within a period of two months from today,
failing which the award(s) dated 27.02.2017, passed by the Tribunal shall
enure. In such eventuality, respondent No. 2 - workman will be entitled to
claim 'full back-wages', as already ordered by the Tribunal.
16. As pointed out by learned Senior counsel, and also observed
here-above, in some of the execution proceedings preferred by respondent
No. 2 - workmen, the Executing Court has already passed orders for
attachment of bank accounts of the petitioner/management and also issued
warrants of attachment, therefore, to safeguard the interest of the
petitioner/management and also enabling it to make payment(s) to
respondent No. 2 - workmen, operation of such orders for attachment of
13 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052849
Neutral Citation No.: 2024:PHHC:052849
CWP-20416-2017 (O&M) & connected petitions - 14 -
bank accounts as also warrants of attachment, issued by the concerned
Executing Court, in different execution petitions instituted by respondent
No. 2 - workmen herein, shall remain stayed till 01.07.2024 only. In case
of non-compliance of the statement made on behalf of the
petitioner/management today before this Court, it will be open for the
Executing Court to proceed with the execution proceedings, in accordance
with law.
17. With the above modification in the award(s) dated 27.02.2017,
passed by the Tribunal in respective cases, and the direction concerning
execution proceedings, all the 09 writ petitions and pending miscellaneous
applications therein, are disposed of accordingly.
18. For compliance, Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgement to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, with a
direction to transmit the same forthwith to the concerned Executing Court,
where proceedings for execution of the award(s) dated 27.02.2017, passed
by the Tribunal in respective references, are pending.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 18, 2024
Pkapoor Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
14 of 14
